Well, be careful because they're not. More importantly, you're diluting the word, and it's not a word that is well served by being tossed about indiscriminately.
All you did in that post was rant about eBay and state your unsupported opinion about what is currently happening at eBay.
If you have some sources that support your claims, I'd love to see them. Nothing would make me happier than eBay losing money. Until then, you're just blowing smoke, and somehow getting modded to +5.
"his big trick is building a straw man and then accusing his "opponent" of doing so. "
So post an example you lying piece of garbage. It's easy to follow me around after I've proven you wrong and whine like the bitch you are, but linking to my comment page doesn't prove your point, and in fact, demonstrates how I shut you the fuck up the first time, because you can't even accurately cite your argument's points.
Fuck, it must have been pretty traumatic for you to be proven wrong in public like I did, that's the only excuse I can see for you making a fool of yourself by posting AC as your admission that you couldn't successfully debate me.
"This is further ironic because you attacked me for using a straw man argument when it was actually you who used the straw man argument."
No, I did not. You have demonstrated that you don't know what one is, so your opinion on the subject is useless.
You have also demonstrated that despite being told why you are wrong, your response is to continue to misunderstand your own sources and continue the same flawed argument that has already been refuted.
For example, YOU asked how chemical weapons are tools, I gave you an exmple and your response was
"That is convenient, isn't it? I'm sure the Reagan administration thought this all through carefully so as to keep their hands as clean as possible."
Which is just moronic. YOU asked for a use for the TOOLS that chemicals are, and when given one, you try to pretend it's a plot by Reagan? That alone proves just how dogmatic and zealous your belief in your failed thinking is.
How does it feel to know you're wrong and not be able to me down because I've proved it?
"No, the comment was with regard to the exaggerated nature of claims for sporting events."
You're saying "no" when you didn't refute my point.
ALL of your events are for a single day, which has fuck all to do with total viewership. You;re wrong.
"Both figures are simply not credible but go unchallenged."
Fine, but challenge them with relevant numbers, not list of single day events. The Olympics IS NOT a single day event, so total viewership is the number, and it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NUMBERS YOU LISTED. It doesn't matter that they didn't watch EVERY day, that's a stupid criteria that is irrelevant.
"But you assume I don't speak to people like that in person."
No actually, I didn't assume anything (other than the fact that you're a raging asshole, which you've proven true). You're trying to fabricate an excuse.
But no, you just wrote something stupid and hypocritical and weren't smart enough to realize it.
"It tends to be punchy little guys who take exception, and get laughed at."
Maybe, but this time it was YOU. Ha ha @ you internet tough guy who lies about what he says in real life to avoid admitting he wrote something stupid.
"We knew they were using chemical weapons on the Iranians before we sold them the weapons. And it is in the "proof" that I linked."
NO YOU FUCKING MORON, IT IS NOT.
What YOU have is a piece by a third party discussing the secret meetings of two OTHER parties. That's not proof to anyone but an idiot. As to "CW", do you know what qualifies as "CW"? If you DID, you wouldn't be dumb enough to forward that as proof.
"You tell me that I'm wrong, and yet you provide no examples of how chemical weapons are "tools". "
You use them to do a job, that makes thEm tools, and makes you an idiot for asking for proof of something that is obvious to anyone who isn't retarded. If you want a SPECIFIC example, DEFOLIANT YOU FUCKING MORON.
I'm not making any straw men or putting any words in your mouth
Yes you are and now you're lying about THAT too.
By defending the US distribution of chemical weapons to Iraq, you are defending the Reagan Administration's idea that you can sell chemical weapons to people so they can kill your enemies for you.
I'm doing NONE OF THE ABOVE, and THAT is a perfect example of the straw men you're lying about not using.
Look it up on wikipedia, for heaven's sake
I don't have to asshole, I'm familiar with it, your post makes it clear you're not. It certainly DOES NOT say what you claim it does, for instance, it doesn't outlaw manufacture or storage of chemical weapons, and when signed, many of the member states did so only after having their reservations accepted (which is allowed within the framework). Or did you not know that?
I'm not lying here - chemical weapons have been illegal for decades
No, you ARE lying, they HAVE NOT been illegal for decades. Many countries have agreed not to use them, which is the correct characterization of the Geneva Protocol your crowing about, but THEY ARE NOT ILLEGAL. YOU are wrong.
Try actually reading the text you're linking to, that way you can avoid saying shit that is demonstrably false IN YOUR OWN LINKS.
and the jury most probably declared him guilty because of the overwhelming evidence, even though it was mostly circumstantial
Fixed that to make it reflect reality.
He didn't get convicted because he was weird, or arrogant, or strange, or exasperating, knock that shit off please. He got convicted because there was real evidence which he failed to explain adequately, or even believably, or hell, even non-absurdly.
"I can't write a witty rebuttal so I shall just say 'Fuck You'
Fuck You."
Then you said
"the ultimate tool for letting lippy cocksuckers who couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag say what they like to people without getting a richly deserved kicking."
... in which I am a "liar" is that I wrote that I would not answer you again.
Well, you're forgetting your lies about straw men, but at least you've admitted you're a liar. That's the first step.
One more time, in an attempt to get you to understand: your "questions" were worded as statements
And again, because you're stupid, JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN INTERROGATORY AND A DECLARATIVE DOES NOT MEAN THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. You are blaming me for the fact that you're too stupid to understand what you're reading.
I have no fear of stating my opinions here.
Of course not, you're too dumb to realize how idiotic they are. But you should be afraid.
You can continue to answer again here all you want but in effect you would be talking to yourself.
You don't let people have the last word, you just lie and pretend to.
Hmm, looks like I was correct about you lying.
our whole "point" was your incorrect contention that "AVG is not spamming the web with deceptive traffic"
NO YOU STUPID FUCKING WHORE MY POINT WAS THAT "AVG" IS NOT THE SAME AS "CUSTOMERS OF AVG". I find it humorous tat you call me stupid because YOU didn't understand what YOU were reading.
But by making the default config of their crapware do precisely that , it was an idiotic statement, because that is precisely what AVG has done
Which has nothing to do with my point, which you'd realize if you were smarter.
Now, you misogynist dickhead asswipe, you may insert the final (and no doubt laughably wrong) word. Buh-bye!
Two things, first, I don't hate women, I hate lying cunts like you.
Second, you said I'd have the last word before, I said you were lying, and you were, so that "you can have the last word" garbage fails. It would work better if you were actually able to keep your fucking dicksucker shut like you lied about doing before.
Read you own link genius, it's not what you claim it is, and it definitely doesn't say what you claim it does.
While I would contend that chemical weapons are not tools,
Contending does not make it so, and in this case, you are wrong.
you forget that we knew what they were going to do with those weapons.
No we don't, and you have no evidence to show otherwise. Your "proof" certainly doesn't show that.
Your "logic" (i.e. opinion) is that you can sell an illegal weapon to someone knowing full well that they will use that weapon to kill people, and that you can claim plausible deniability in order to avoid accountability.
No it isn't, save your stupid fucking straw men for someone who'll let you get away with them. If you're going to lie about my positions, then there's no reason for me to refrain from telling you to fuck off.
Chemical warfare was outlawed by the 1925 Geneva Convention
NO actually, it wasn't. Do you intend to lie at every opportunity in order to support your already disproven point?
You have yet to demonstrate a single thing apart from the fact that you'll openly lie to support your point.
Actually I was just refuting the stupid assertion that knowing about a crime = guilty of it, by giving two counterexamples.
No, you were trying to refute them, and your attempts failed.
That internet mindreading course - I'd demand a refund if I were you. That goes for the ones on logic, English comprehension and debate too.
In other words, you know I'm right. So do I.
Perhaps he thought nobody would believe him?
Perhaps that's a stupid attempt at reasoning. Wait, no perhaps necessary.
Now before you make a fool of yourself again for responding to what somebody didn't say, read that in the context of the whole message, particularly the first part.
I did, still ridiculous.
Now unless you want shoving face-down in a hole too, I suggest you shut up and fuck off in whichever order suits you best.
Wait, wait, wait, you're threatening me? SERIOUSLY? A scrawny nothing loser ass nerd like you is actually attempting to threaten me over the internet? And you think I won't virtually laugh in your virtual face? Ok chief, shove me "face-down in a hole", back it up tough guy. I'm waiting patiently...
Jesus, I was half kidding when I said you were pathetic before, but it looks like I was more correct than even I thought.
I love your sarcasm, it perfectly captures the obliviousness of his supporters and their unrelenting denial in the face of the evidence. Hell you even went so far as to concoct a totally implausible explanation that is ridiculous in every aspect, then claim it's more reasonable than the idea that he killed her. "Organized crime hit team", that was awesome, it's really representative of the kind of nonsense that his supporters are bandying about.
Nicely done, I just hope the mods don't assume you were serious and mod you down.
No, the reason why we wanted to believe was that we thought he was being found guilty by weak circumstantial evidence, but that was our overwhelming bias and ignorance regarding what circumstantial evidence is, and what it showed in this case.
You thinking it was "weak" has no bearing on it's "strength", only on your ignorance. You were wrong, no matter how many times you try to imply otherwise.
I do like how you're obviously trying to pretend he's not guilty without explicitly saying so. It doesn't make you less pathetic or less wrong, but it is pretty savvy.
But just so we're clear, the idea is that he was told the location of the body by the actual murderer and it was only after his conviction that it came up? Or that he witnessed something involving his wife's murder and only after he got convicted it came up?
And that makes sense to you? I ask because it's pretty ridiculous, yet you don't seem to understand that.
Well, Mr. Nut-hugger, please explain what Mr. Gracie is doing while Mr. Fedor is raining punches on his head?
I'll answer that for you, losing. Your portrayal of BJJ as some magical cure all in a fight demonstrates quite clearly that you have no idea what the fuck your running your mouth about.
If I had to bet on your fictional choices, I'd bet on the guy who is willing to take a chunk of meant out of Mr. Gracies arm every time he tries a choke, or take a bite out of his ribs, or is willing to stick his finger in an eye until he finds the brain.
BJJ is just a tool (like you only different), sometimes it's right for the job and sometimes it isn't.
"I'm not very familiar with the training though, so maybe that problem takes care of itself."
I'm glad you posted that caveat, it was clear from your post but that you understand you aren't aware of the training regimen makes it ok that you don't know.
That said, your concern is legitimate. You will break your hand if you hit someone full force even with year of training, but honestly, that's true of most adults. Of course, I'll take a broken hand every single time if it means I've incapacitated the other guy, which it usually does if you know what you're doing.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, be careful because they're not. More importantly, you're diluting the word, and it's not a word that is well served by being tossed about indiscriminately.
All you did in that post was rant about eBay and state your unsupported opinion about what is currently happening at eBay.
If you have some sources that support your claims, I'd love to see them. Nothing would make me happier than eBay losing money. Until then, you're just blowing smoke, and somehow getting modded to +5.
The mod system is broken.
I've been patiently waiting for you to follow up on your pathetic internet "threat".
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=606465&cid=24100855
I notice you're still a loser and I'm still laughing at how ridiculous you are.
So, any more stupid internet threats I can laugh at you about?
But your nonchalance regarding rights vs. "perks" is scary. You shouldn't be so cavalier when discussing them, the difference is important.
"his big trick is building a straw man and then accusing his "opponent" of doing so. "
So post an example you lying piece of garbage. It's easy to follow me around after I've proven you wrong and whine like the bitch you are, but linking to my comment page doesn't prove your point, and in fact, demonstrates how I shut you the fuck up the first time, because you can't even accurately cite your argument's points.
Fuck, it must have been pretty traumatic for you to be proven wrong in public like I did, that's the only excuse I can see for you making a fool of yourself by posting AC as your admission that you couldn't successfully debate me.
"This is further ironic because you attacked me for using a straw man argument when it was actually you who used the straw man argument."
No, I did not. You have demonstrated that you don't know what one is, so your opinion on the subject is useless.
You have also demonstrated that despite being told why you are wrong, your response is to continue to misunderstand your own sources and continue the same flawed argument that has already been refuted.
For example, YOU asked how chemical weapons are tools, I gave you an exmple and your response was
"That is convenient, isn't it? I'm sure the Reagan administration thought this all through carefully so as to keep their hands as clean as possible."
Which is just moronic. YOU asked for a use for the TOOLS that chemicals are, and when given one, you try to pretend it's a plot by Reagan? That alone proves just how dogmatic and zealous your belief in your failed thinking is.
How does it feel to know you're wrong and not be able to me down because I've proved it?
"No, the comment was with regard to the exaggerated nature of claims for sporting events."
You're saying "no" when you didn't refute my point.
ALL of your events are for a single day, which has fuck all to do with total viewership. You;re wrong.
"Both figures are simply not credible but go unchallenged."
Fine, but challenge them with relevant numbers, not list of single day events. The Olympics IS NOT a single day event, so total viewership is the number, and it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NUMBERS YOU LISTED. It doesn't matter that they didn't watch EVERY day, that's a stupid criteria that is irrelevant.
You're wrong, and your examples are useless.
"But you assume I don't speak to people like that in person."
No actually, I didn't assume anything (other than the fact that you're a raging asshole, which you've proven true). You're trying to fabricate an excuse.
But no, you just wrote something stupid and hypocritical and weren't smart enough to realize it.
"It tends to be punchy little guys who take exception, and get laughed at."
Maybe, but this time it was YOU. Ha ha @ you internet tough guy who lies about what he says in real life to avoid admitting he wrote something stupid.
Go be pathetic somewhere else now, thanks.
"let go of those rights"
You didn't list any rights. Don't think I disagree with your point, but nothing you listed is a right.
"We knew they were using chemical weapons on the Iranians before we sold them the weapons. And it is in the "proof" that I linked."
NO YOU FUCKING MORON, IT IS NOT.
What YOU have is a piece by a third party discussing the secret meetings of two OTHER parties. That's not proof to anyone but an idiot. As to "CW", do you know what qualifies as "CW"? If you DID, you wouldn't be dumb enough to forward that as proof.
"You tell me that I'm wrong, and yet you provide no examples of how chemical weapons are "tools". "
You use them to do a job, that makes thEm tools, and makes you an idiot for asking for proof of something that is obvious to anyone who isn't retarded. If you want a SPECIFIC example, DEFOLIANT YOU FUCKING MORON.
Yes you are and now you're lying about THAT too.
I'm doing NONE OF THE ABOVE, and THAT is a perfect example of the straw men you're lying about not using.
I don't have to asshole, I'm familiar with it, your post makes it clear you're not. It certainly DOES NOT say what you claim it does, for instance, it doesn't outlaw manufacture or storage of chemical weapons, and when signed, many of the member states did so only after having their reservations accepted (which is allowed within the framework). Or did you not know that?
No, you ARE lying, they HAVE NOT been illegal for decades. Many countries have agreed not to use them, which is the correct characterization of the Geneva Protocol your crowing about, but THEY ARE NOT ILLEGAL. YOU are wrong.
Try actually reading the text you're linking to, that way you can avoid saying shit that is demonstrably false IN YOUR OWN LINKS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Fixed that to make it reflect reality.
He didn't get convicted because he was weird, or arrogant, or strange, or exasperating, knock that shit off please. He got convicted because there was real evidence which he failed to explain adequately, or even believably, or hell, even non-absurdly.
You said
"I can't write a witty rebuttal so I shall just say 'Fuck You'
Fuck You."
Then you said
"the ultimate tool for letting lippy cocksuckers who couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag say what they like to people without getting a richly deserved kicking."
Then I laughed at you.
"There are plenty of people with Aspergers who can speak more eloquently than you or I"
Well, you at least...
Well, you're forgetting your lies about straw men, but at least you've admitted you're a liar. That's the first step.
And again, because you're stupid, JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN INTERROGATORY AND A DECLARATIVE DOES NOT MEAN THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. You are blaming me for the fact that you're too stupid to understand what you're reading.
Of course not, you're too dumb to realize how idiotic they are. But you should be afraid.
Yeah, yeah, so are you lying again?
Hmm, looks like I was correct about you lying.
NO YOU STUPID FUCKING WHORE MY POINT WAS THAT "AVG" IS NOT THE SAME AS "CUSTOMERS OF AVG". I find it humorous tat you call me stupid because YOU didn't understand what YOU were reading.
Read you own link genius, it's not what you claim it is, and it definitely doesn't say what you claim it does.
Contending does not make it so, and in this case, you are wrong.
I love your sarcasm, it perfectly captures the obliviousness of his supporters and their unrelenting denial in the face of the evidence. Hell you even went so far as to concoct a totally implausible explanation that is ridiculous in every aspect, then claim it's more reasonable than the idea that he killed her. "Organized crime hit team", that was awesome, it's really representative of the kind of nonsense that his supporters are bandying about.
Nicely done, I just hope the mods don't assume you were serious and mod you down.
You thinking it was "weak" has no bearing on it's "strength", only on your ignorance. You were wrong, no matter how many times you try to imply otherwise.
You'd be funny if your denial wasn't so pathetic.
I do like how you're obviously trying to pretend he's not guilty without explicitly saying so. It doesn't make you less pathetic or less wrong, but it is pretty savvy.
But just so we're clear, the idea is that he was told the location of the body by the actual murderer and it was only after his conviction that it came up? Or that he witnessed something involving his wife's murder and only after he got convicted it came up?
And that makes sense to you? I ask because it's pretty ridiculous, yet you don't seem to understand that.
You're listing single day events.
Please think about why your comparison fails because of that.
Thanks.
You're a Gracie nut-hugger.
Well, Mr. Nut-hugger, please explain what Mr. Gracie is doing while Mr. Fedor is raining punches on his head?
I'll answer that for you, losing. Your portrayal of BJJ as some magical cure all in a fight demonstrates quite clearly that you have no idea what the fuck your running your mouth about.
If I had to bet on your fictional choices, I'd bet on the guy who is willing to take a chunk of meant out of Mr. Gracies arm every time he tries a choke, or take a bite out of his ribs, or is willing to stick his finger in an eye until he finds the brain.
BJJ is just a tool (like you only different), sometimes it's right for the job and sometimes it isn't.
"I'm not very familiar with the training though, so maybe that problem takes care of itself."
I'm glad you posted that caveat, it was clear from your post but that you understand you aren't aware of the training regimen makes it ok that you don't know.
That said, your concern is legitimate. You will break your hand if you hit someone full force even with year of training, but honestly, that's true of most adults. Of course, I'll take a broken hand every single time if it means I've incapacitated the other guy, which it usually does if you know what you're doing.
"What I wanted to illustrate is that there can be a very good reason for a lot of blood in your car"
We know, that point isn't being debated.
The point that was made, that you clearly missed, is that it is unusual and somewhat rare and generally has an explanation.
You only served to prove his point.