Moderator: Community Team
nietzsche wrote:Omg saxi broke the BBS.
And Mets doesn't have an opinion of the breaking.
nietzsche wrote:Omg saxi broke the BBS.
And Mets doesn't have an opinion of the breaking.
BigBallinStalin wrote:nietzsche wrote:Omg saxi broke the BBS.
And Mets doesn't have an opinion of the breaking.
huh? How? Sax provided nothing of substantive content and has resorted to irrationality. That's begging for a good trolling, which he has yet to get over.
saxitoxin wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:nietzsche wrote:Omg saxi broke the BBS.
And Mets doesn't have an opinion of the breaking.
huh? How? Sax provided nothing of substantive content and has resorted to irrationality. That's begging for a good trolling, which he has yet to get over.
Yeah, I know. Your fit was actually all part of your master plan you've been concocting for "centuries through time immemorial" or whatever it was. Don't you and Mets have a Twilight LARP you need to be at?
So strange. Just so, so bizarre.
BigBallinStalin wrote:saxitoxin wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:nietzsche wrote:Omg saxi broke the BBS.
And Mets doesn't have an opinion of the breaking.
huh? How? Sax provided nothing of substantive content and has resorted to irrationality. That's begging for a good trolling, which he has yet to get over.
Yeah, I know. Your fit was actually all part of your master plan you've been concocting for "centuries through time immemorial" or whatever it was. Don't you and Mets have a Twilight LARP you need to be at?
So strange. Just so, so bizarre.
When you've emotionally exhausted yourself, would you care to address any problems with your stance?
BigBallinStalin wrote:Well, I've already explained how that interpretation was incorrect, but that doesn't prevent you from repeating the same position without modification. This is similar to how you address criticism against your geopolitical hypotheses: reject, insert logical fallacies, repeat initial argument.
Since we should not expect you to provide further explanations of your flawed arguments, then at best we can only remain satisfied with your rhetoric and intellectual dishonesty.
saxitoxin wrote:carry on with your carrying on
saxitoxin wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Well, I've already explained how that interpretation was incorrect, but that doesn't prevent you from repeating the same position without modification. This is similar to how you address criticism against your geopolitical hypotheses: reject, insert logical fallacies, repeat initial argument.
Since we should not expect you to provide further explanations of your flawed arguments, then at best we can only remain satisfied with your rhetoric and intellectual dishonesty.
once again, responding without checking to see to what you're responding
this is quite the M.O.
carry on with your carrying on
Metsfanmax wrote:saxitoxin wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Well, I've already explained how that interpretation was incorrect, but that doesn't prevent you from repeating the same position without modification. This is similar to how you address criticism against your geopolitical hypotheses: reject, insert logical fallacies, repeat initial argument.
Since we should not expect you to provide further explanations of your flawed arguments, then at best we can only remain satisfied with your rhetoric and intellectual dishonesty.
once again, responding without checking to see to what you're responding
this is quite the M.O.
carry on with your carrying on
yap yap yap
saxitoxin wrote:he's not actually interested in this thread
Metsfanmax wrote:saxitoxin wrote:he's not actually interested in this thread
But you are?
saxitoxin wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:saxitoxin wrote:he's not actually interested in this thread
But you are?
yup - I said so two pages back ... the page before you made a ¡point! of very loudly making sure everyone knew that you had no interest in it
BigBallinStalin wrote:Well, I've already explained how that interpretation was incorrect, but that doesn't prevent you from repeating the same position without modification. This is similar to how you address criticism against your geopolitical hypotheses: reject, insert logical fallacies, repeat initial argument.
Since we should not expect you to provide further explanations of your flawed arguments, then at best we can only remain satisfied with your rhetoric and intellectual dishonesty.
BigBallinStalin wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Well, I've already explained how that interpretation was incorrect, but that doesn't prevent you from repeating the same position without modification. This is similar to how you address criticism against your geopolitical hypotheses: reject, insert logical fallacies, repeat initial argument.
Since we should not expect you to provide further explanations of your flawed arguments, then at best we can only remain satisfied with your rhetoric and intellectual dishonesty.
"But, BBS, does this pattern actually hold?"
Yes, it does.
After the trolling punishment against sax for engaging in his typical pattern, I offer this serious rebuttal of his stance, whatever it has/will change into. Unsurprisingly, saxi again rejects, inserts his logical fallacies, and then repeats his position*. That last repetition actually is a repetition of his logical fallacies. Saxi then doubles-down on his nonsense here and here.*Admittedly, he repeated his logical fallacy, which may suggest that my prediction doesn't cover his pattern, but it still does. Saxi is still running the circles of his logical fallacy stage. However, after perusing pages 8-10, the saxi-pattern holds: rejection, logical fallacy, repetition.
It all began with me pointing out that saxi's conclusion about Assad and Obama was poorly grounded and oblivious of other factors that were ocurring beyond saxi's imagination.. Saxi ignores this and provides another onslaught of cognitive bias. Further ignoring evidence to the contrary, saxi repeats his nonsense from the first post.
At this stage, I have not trolled sax. I then bear with his nonsense, and ask him about his additional claims. Saxi magically changes his initial stance and "explains" how he is still correct.
After seeing saxi repeatedly act the fool, I decide that saxi deserves to be treated with the respect he gives to anyone posing serious questions. Thus, the the US-oil price debate begins, where I subtly insert my charge of saxi being a conspiracy theorist. He takes the bait, emotions get heated, he finds the first study that vaguely supports his stance--which still fails to address my reasonable qualms. Saxi doubles-down on his nonsense, I push harder, and then break the news that he's been trolled.
What we see now is saxi refusing to admit that he's been trolled. He's still stuck in his logical fallacy stage while intermittently admitting that he's right on whatever nonsense he said earlier. Let's see what happens next.
punishment against sax for engaging
GoranZ wrote:
Maybe the question should not be "Who da f*ck are you?" but "Who made you and why?".
owenshooter wrote:apparently, they recreate on CC...
Subject: Name Abuse: "Free Syrian Army"
the black jesus has spoken...-Jésus noir
muy_thaiguy wrote:owenshooter wrote:apparently, they recreate on CC...
Subject: Name Abuse: "Free Syrian Army"
the black jesus has spoken...-Jésus noir
Except that profile predates ISIS by 3-4 years and the guy is in Switzerland...
GoranZ wrote:http://rt.com/news/203587-isis-convoy-us-airstrike/
If their leader dies ISIS will turn into chaos and probably disappear with the speed it show up.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users