spud said:

If you've taken any offense to anything said in S&P, then wow man. Just...wow.

---

First off, its hard to take offense from something suspossedly said in a forum that does not exist. What is the name of this forum again?

Second off, I admit that I am not able to discern where it has been that Swami has implied having taken offense. Please clarify, as you obviously have proposed the preposition that he may have taken offense. What exactly is it concerning his post that suggests that he may have?

By the way, Spud, if you might have taken offense here in this thread, then, wow, man, just, whoa... unbelievably wow, man. My god, wow.... wow. Wow.  Whoa nelly, whoa wow wow whoa wow.

Wow. Just, you know, wow.

Wow.


Peace.

Deviate said:

swami when your arguments go flat you don't respond any better than the people that prompted your creation of this thread. i can recall several instances where you simply ignored peoples entire rebuttles.

---

Feel free to demonstrate this. There is no sense in making a statement concerning the nature of something without providing for us that which you base your understanding upon. Otherwise it is simply unsubstantiated conjecture, and it is not possible to engage in a discussion of ideas.

Otherwise, I could simply say "Oh yeah, Deviate? I recall several times when you have made posts where you don't post better than someone else and I can remember countless times where you just ignore the point and blah blah blah".

How does someone debate something like that? "Nu-uh, mang, I always respond better than those I am questioning and I always directly address the point". "Fuck you, man, I remember differently". etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Perhaps he only ignores rebutalls like these, the conjectured ones that cannot actually be discussed?

"Nu-uh, mang, he ignores valid ones! I remember!"

REAL productive manner of discussion, folks.


Peace.

fireworks_god said:

Deviate said:

swami when your arguments go flat you don't respond any better than the people that prompted your creation of this thread. i can recall several instances where you simply ignored peoples entire rebuttles.

---

Feel free to demonstrate this. There is no sense in making a statement concerning the nature of something without providing for us that which you base your understanding upon. Otherwise it is simply unsubstantiated conjecture, and it is not possible to engage in a discussion of ideas.

Otherwise, I could simply say "Oh yeah, Deviate? I recall several times when you have made posts where you don't post better than someone else and I can remember countless times where you just ignore the point and blah blah blah".

How does someone debate something like that? "Nu-uh, mang, I always respond better than those I am questioning and I always directly address the point". "Fuck you, man, I remember differently". etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Perhaps he only ignores rebutalls like these, the conjectured ones that cannot actually be discussed?

"Nu-uh, mang, he ignores valid ones! I remember!"

REAL productive manner of discussion, folks.


Peace.

---

Deviate said:

swami knows what im talking about as ive discussed it with him before and i provided multiple specific examples in that discussion.

---

That reminds me of finding trash that my dog has chewed up an hour after the fact, and confronting him about it, when he more than likely doesn't remember it anymore. "He knows what he's done!". Yeah, right. 

I remember confronting you about all of those times that you said you loved smacking old people around and then running away. I gave you examples then. Don't forget it. See, same thing.

Quote:

i don't feel like trying to look through old posts and dig them up now, its late and im too tired to begin some kind of formal debate.

---

If you do not wish to begin some kind of formal debate, then do not start one by proposing unsubstantiated claims for discussion. Simple.


Peace.