| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"ROB Wade" |
| Date: |
15 Aug 2005 01:05:59 PM |
| Object: |
The gag reflex |
The gag reflex
By Alan Sears
WorldNetDaily.com
California's advocates of homosexual behavior continue to explore brave
new ways to whittle the First Amendment down to a manageable size -
big enough to embrace their defiant, deviant behavioral choices; small
enough to silence anyone who opposes them.
Their latest inspiration is to introduce legislation in the California
Assembly that, if passed, would compel all political candidates who
sign a "voluntary" non-discrimination pledge to refrain from any "hate
speeches" that do not affirm homosexual behavior and that might inflame
the campaign trail. The current pledge only lists race, sex, religion,
national origin, physical health status, and age. The bill, AB 866,
made its way through a judiciary committee April 5.
There's no provision to opt out of one part of the pledge. Sign the
whole thing - or don't sign it and appear as though you don't care
about equality for anyone. In effect, this so-called addition to the
"pledge" amounts to a gag rule on anyone who fails to adequately, and
vocally, endorse the homosexual agenda. In other words, their new
"tolerance" is their opposition's silence.
Those promoting that agenda claim such gagging is necessary, since (in
the words of the bill's sponsor, Democrat Leland Yee) any debate over
homosexual rights is inherently "divisive," "potentially dangerous" to
the community, and contributes to "an atmosphere of fear, intimidation,
and instances of violence." Wouldn't it just be better for everyone,
Yee and company suggest, if we refrained from discussing these issues
altogether and just quietly agreed to go along with what "lesbians,
gays, bisexuals, and transgender individuals" want?
That's an interesting perspective, coming from a group who clings so
tenaciously to their own freedom of speech rights under the First
Amendment. It reminds one of the guiding philosophy of the dictatorial
pigs on George Orwell's "Animal Farm": "All animals are equal," they
declared, "but some are more equal than others."
Of course, just because those promoting the homosexual agenda might be
hypocritical here doesn't mean that they're completely wrong. Debate
does tend to reveal divisions. They ought to realize that that is a
primary purpose of debate. And, yes, the marketplace of ideas is indeed
a potentially dangerous place - almost as dangerous as a state
assembly that would consider giving itself the authority to decide what
candidates can and cannot talk about.
Does unfettered discussion of the morals, goals and social activism of
those who engage in homosexual behavior indeed breed fear and
intimidation? Perhaps in a limited number of extreme cases. But then so
does wielding the law like a two-by-four on anyone who questions your
politics. Are people more frightened when they know they can openly and
fully debate an issue - or when they are ordered not to?
An overreaction, some may say. But controlling the language is almost
always a component of government-backed cultural indoctrination. The
Canadian province of Ontario, which in February struck all
gender-specific references from its laws, programs, services and
documents is but the latest domino to fall. As predictable as it was
outrageous - but California is proving that such oddness is not
reserved for our friends to the north.
Is the First Amendment, with all its safeguards for religious liberty
and free speech, expendable now if it interferes with the homosexual
agenda?
But this isn't just about politics, say those who engage in homosexual
behavior. They claim their very lives are at stake. Widespread
anti-homosexual violence rises, they say, in the wake of comments
opposing celebration of their legal demands and sexual behavior.
Well ... easy to state, hard to prove. Contrary to the mistaken
assumptions of the advocates of homosexual behavior in California,
communication is key to resolving volatile issues. Historically,
attempts to throttle free speech or use government coercion to dictate
the language have failed miserably in achieving any good whatsoever.
And that, in the end, is the problem with California's proposed
"pledge" legislation. If dispute and division looms when issues of
morality, decency and human sexuality are discussed; if debating these
points continues to reveal deep differences among the voting public; if
some on both sides of these questions find the opposition intimidating
....
.... it may be because these issues are that important.
So important that they cut to the essential foundations of who we are
as a people. So important that advocates of homosexual behavior are
willing to undermine - or even ignore - the First Amendment to
avoid them.
.
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Johnny's birth is reponsible for tragic historical events - the timeline proves it |
13 Sep 2005 08:55:26 AM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124898538.948156.167410@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124849721.775078.242360@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124841764.605054.289950@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
You seem to think that the people of the USA are fodder for OPEC.
Whose side are you on?
Stick to the topic, asswipe.
What topic is more important than the people of the USA to a US
Citizen?
Sorry that you are showing yourself to be for OPEC financed operations
of
the arab terroorist groups.
Diversionary tactic noted.
I see you doing that, again.
Prove your claim, *****.
LOL!
YIPPEEEEE!!!!!!
It makes me happy to see you squirm.
Let's see:
- I ask you to prove your claim
- You come up with some excuse not to
- I ask you to prove your claim, again
- You come up with another excuse not to
- I ask you to prove your claim, again
- You come up with yet another excuse not to
Obviously, you aren't familiar with the definition of the word
"squirm".
Now, kindly go ***** yourself. When you're
done, you can then prove that the oil embargo was a result of RvW was
you claimed.
There is nothing to prove. The timeline shows the progression.
Exactly, it shows the PROGRESSION. However, it doesn't show a
CORRELATION. It's your job to show the CORRELATION, and you have
failed MISERABLY.
Your inability to correlate it is what I see.
Your inability to prove your claim is what everyone sees.
This is about you and your claim that RvW
caused the oil embargo. Trying to demonize me isn't going to work.
Either prove your claim or admit defeat.
Sorry. You are resisting my attempt to free the USA from the noosegrip
of
OPEC.
Prove your claim, *****.
That gas prices are so high now and that they escalated so much after
1973?
That doesn't prove they're related. How many times does this have to
be explained to you?
LOL!!!!!
Seeing you squirm is amusing.
Too bad you're the one squirming.
Recall the tobacco wars where cause and effect was not proven
yet
the
tobacco industry was still discipilined.
So what.
Precedent.
Irrelevant *****. Prove your claim.
Precedent is *****?
Do you not understand the word IRRELEVANT, fucktard?
I sure do. Seems to me you don't.
If you did, you wouldn't have asked such a stupid question.
Look it up, and
then get back to proving your claim that the oil embargo was a result
of RvW.
You want to prove that it had nothing to do with it?
You claimed it DID, therefore, it's your job to prove YOUR claim,
asswipe.
*****. It is your incessant bitching about it which is evident.
I am NOT required to prove it.
The data is already there.
If you want anyone to take you seriously, you would prove it.
Otherwise it's nothing more than another pile of Johnny ***** (tm).
How's this relevant to your claim that RvW caused the oil
embargo. Here's your free clue: it's not.
Your claim that it isn't related is proven how, where?
"empirical data" LOL!!!!!
You think that is a joke?
No, I think YOU are a joke, and that was a direct jab at your
stupidity.
Which did not land.
How do you hit that which is not there?
I said I was aiming at you stupidity, not your brain.
You missed. You can not hit a non-existent thing.
Good to see you admit your brain is non-existant.
I'm asking you to provide
proof of your claim,
Go ahead. Saddle yourself with the burden of proving that they are
NOT
related.
It's your claim, fucknut. And, a negative can't be proven.
To less knowledgeable minds like yours negatives can not be proven.
Prove you're NOT a homosexual then.
I am heterosexual. Therefore, I am NOT homosexual.
That doesn't prove you're not homosexual.
Gay people think that way, huh?
I don't know, why don't you tell us since you're gay.
You could be lying.
You think so because so many other people told you lies?
No, I think so because YOU lie.
Prove
you AREN'T a homosexual with undisputable facts and data
I did it.
Nope, you provided no undisputable facts, you simply claimed it wasn't
true. My claim that you're a homosexual still stands.
- free hint,
your word isn't good enough here, you've lied before.
Sorry, It is.
Nope it isn't.
You can do that right after you
prove that the oil embargo was a result of RvW.
Is that a negative?
Diversionary tactic noted, prove your claim, asswipe.
How much you gonna pay me to do the work you are deamnding that I do?
You said the data is already there just above. Therefore there's no
work to pay your for. Simply post the data, or you can continue to run
away like a coward - take your pick. However, keep in mind that your
refusal to defend your claim continues to chip away at your nearly
non-existant credibility.
Therefore,
the burden of proof lies on you.
Look at the gas prices now.
So what.
You wanna help to do something about it or do you want to keep on ranting
your diversions?
It's not a diversion.
U.S. Citizens would disagree with your OPEC embargo supporting attitude.
Another claim you can't defend. Big surprise.
Simply claiming that gas prices are high doesn't
link it writh RvW. Prove your claim, asswipe.
The data is there already.
You wanna stop resisting reality?
Apparently, it's not as easy to come by as you claim or you'd simply
post it and defend your claim.
That doesn't prove it was a result of RvW as you claimed.
Can you prove it had nothing to do with it?
It's not my job *****.
I am unimpressed.
Still to stupid to figure out it's your responsibility to defend your
claim. I'm unimpressed.
YOU are the one making the claim that it is,
therefore, it's YOUR job to show the correlation.
It isn't my job.
"I am unimpressed"
The data is already there.
If you want me to put all the data together and show you the correlation, I
expect to be paid a wage commensurate with such labor.
Another excuse to not defend your claim, how creative.
And, you've failed
miserably.
Not at all.
Your windbag demands have been refuted by me.
LOL!!! Really? Where did you defend your claim? Oh, that's right, you
didn't.
And, you know you can not get over me, ever.
It irks you, and I get pleasure seeing you writhe and seethe in such
discomfort.
I couldn't care less. The fact that you can't defend you claim says
much about you, and my only concern was showing the world that you
would continue to wiggle in an attempt to not defend your *****
claim. And, the world has seen you for what you are.
I enjoy seeing wimps like you suffer.
The only suffering that occured here was on behalf of your credibility.
Lack of evidence to support you stupdity is also noted.
There is no lack of evidence in my assertion.
Then provide the evidence, fucktard.
You're too lazy to do any research on your own?
I didn't make the claim.
When were you born?
Seems to me you only know of the 1970s from history books.
Nope, I was plent old enough to remember the 70's.
Show that the oil embargo was a
result of RvW.
1973 R V W........Post1973-OPEC oil embargo.
No correlation shown, you continue to ship away at your credibility.
The lack of evidence is with you.
Nice job,
fucktard.
I know I do good work.
For a schmuck.
I wonder if you can say as much about yourself?
LOL!!!!!!!
Continue to bask in your stupidity. You deserve it.
But, as usual, you keep running away,
just like the ***** that you are.
Me running?
I drive a car normally.
More evidence that you refuse to prove your claim. Nice job, fucktard.
Trying to change the subject won't work. Either prove your claim or
it will be shown that you're full of *****.
Continual rants do nothing to disprove me.
There's nothing to disprove, you haven't proven anything other than the
oil embargo happened after RvW, which doesn't prove they are related.
If you lived in the USA in the seventies you wouldn't think that way.
Only if you were insane.
Oops, too late.
For you. We know already.
That would be a much harder task, especially since the evidence
points
more
to my asseertion and away from yours.
You've never provided any "evidence", dipshit.
The empirical data that is there points to my assertion and away from
yours.
The empirical data proves that your a fucking moron who refuses to
prove your claims.
Not actually.
Yes, actually.
*****. You are in denial, Pro-Choice idiot.
Let me use some Johnny Logic(tm) here:
Nope, the empirical data proves that you're a moron. Since you haven't
proven otherwise it must be true.
You have no support at all in your negative, and my assertion has at
least
credence enough to be investigated.
LOL!!! Another admission that you lack the evidence you claim.
Your low reading comprehension level shows.
Provide the evidence that shows that the oil embargo was a result of
RvW.
Why? Because you are too lazy to look it up yourself?
Apparently, you're too lazy to defend your claim.
If it
needs investigated further then obviously you don't have the evidence
NOW.
The evidence is there already.
So fucking what? It only shows that one event took place after
another, it does not establish a corrleation. Show the correlation,
fucktard.
The correlation coefficient is +1.
LOL!
Hypothesis testing says since your assertion has zero probability of
being
true, then the alternate hypothesis that I made is the correct
hypothesis.
Prove your claim or be known as a lying sack of *****. Oops, too late.
Sorry. You lost. Your constant bitching does nothing to counter my
points.
Prove your claim that the oil embargo was a result of RvW.
Why?
You never disproved it.
"I am unimpressed"
and you yourself, have admitted that you would
have to ask oil ministers if that were the case, which you
obviously
haven't done. In short, you don't have evidence to support you
claim.
The fact that one event occurred after another doesn't prove
cause-and-effect, and you know it.
The correlation is there.
And, yet, you can't show where it is. Put your money where your
mouth
is, you damn coward, and show the correlation.
What money?
Quite playing games, fucktard. You know what I mean.
The money that gets sucked at the pump or the money the abortionists,
gays,
theives and liars took from me?
Stick to the subject, asswipe.
I did.
*****, you fucking liar. You went on a rant about money going to
abortionists, gays, thieves and liars, which was a diversionary tactic
away from the subject at hand, which is you proving your claim that the
oil embargo was a result of RvW.
Can you disprove it?
You're gay. Can you disprove it? Answer: No you can't, therefore, you
must be gay.
Prove your claim that the oil embargo
was a result of RvW.
Prove that it didn't, if you can.
You made the claim, it's YOUR job to prove it.
How much does that job pay?
I suspect you will become a cheapskate now.
You said the data is already there. Therefore, there's no work to do
expect show the data. Apparenly, you're too lazy to do it.
Your little sidetrips aren't going to work.
Your demands are not something I give in to.
LOL!!! Exactly, I demanded proof, and you provided NONE.
You are not putting your $$ where your demands are, cheapskate.
I do not work for cheapskates like you.
You don't work PERIOD.
I'll
continue to drag your ***** back to the subject at hand and continue to
show that you're a lying fucktard that can't prove his claims.
You have no power over me.
Diversionary tactic noted, AGAIN. Prove your claim that the oil
embargo was a result of RvW.
Put up or shut up.
LOL!! Another excuse to simply not provide the data that already
exists which proves your claim.
The cause and effect defense is rather moot now.
Heh, run away coward.
Heh.
Can't come up with any more lies, eh?
I already told you that your method is antiquated.
Dinosaur ***** rants such as yours are moot.
As is your PROOF.
What proof?
LOL!!! Exactly. You've not provided any proof. It's funny that even
you question the existance of your proof.
By the way, you being born resulted in the following historical events.
I've applied the same logic you applied to your argument, so disputing
these shows your claim to be *****. You were born before these
events occured, therefore, you being born caused them - the timeline
proves it.
(In no particular order)
1. The passing of RvW and the legalization of abortion. You are
therefore, also responsible for the "killing" of all those "babies" you
***** about.
2. Watergate
3. Disco and platform shoes.
4. The energy crisis of the 70's
5. The destruction of the space shuttle columbia and challenger.
6. The current gas prices
7. The breakup of the band KISS
8. Toxic shock syndrome
9. Cancer from Saccharin.
10. AIDS in the USA.
11. September 11, 2001
12. SARS
13. Avarian Flu
14. The creation of Al Qaeda.
15. The Oklahoma City bombinb
16. Legionaire's Disease.
17. The invention of reality TV
18. The Enron, Adelphia and WorldCom accounting scandals
19. Chernobyl nuclear disaster
20. The death of Pope John Paul II
21. The death of Princess Di
22. Columbine
23. The DC Sniper
24. The Unibomber
25. The severing of John Bobbit's penis
26. The molestation of alter boys by catholic priests.
27. The Jim and Tammie Fae Baker scandal
28. Waco
29. Jim Jones and 912 people who died after drinking the kool-aid.
30. You getting fired
And, the list goes on and on.
Wow. really?
I had no idea I was that ominous. powerful.
Did any interstellar events occur after I was born which I can take credit
for having caused now?
Don't forget all the positive things that occurred after I was born.
With your ideas we are going to need a new calendar.
BCADJD
Looks like we're going to Wentzkytime.
LOL!!!!!!!!
Thank you for the support!!!!!!!
I'm glad to see your so joyous about being responsible for the
suffering of others. Although, it comes as no surprise seeing your
blatant hatred of your fellow man.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Johnny's birth is reponsible for tragic historical events - the timeline proves it |
15 Sep 2005 12:06:28 PM |
|
|
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Johnny's birth is reponsible for tragic historical events - the timeline proves it |
15 Sep 2005 11:49:20 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!
Admission of insanity noted.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Chicago 5, Houston 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Friday, October 7 vs. San Antonio, 7:35
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Johnny's birth is reponsible for tragic historical events - the timeline proves it |
15 Sep 2005 12:12:23 PM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!
LOL!!! Run away, coward.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zeligg" |
|
| Title: Re: Johnny's birth is reponsible for tragic historical events - the timeline proves it |
25 Aug 2005 12:55:56 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 09:39:43 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124898538.948156.167410@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124849721.775078.242360@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124841764.605054.289950@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
You seem to think that the people of the USA are fodder for OPEC.
Whose side are you on?
Stick to the topic, asswipe.
What topic is more important than the people of the USA to a US
Citizen?
Sorry that you are showing yourself to be for OPEC financed operations
of
the arab terroorist groups.
Diversionary tactic noted.
I see you doing that, again.
Prove your claim, *****.
LOL!
YIPPEEEEE!!!!!!
It makes me happy to see you squirm.
Now, kindly go ***** yourself. When you're
done, you can then prove that the oil embargo was a result of RvW was
you claimed.
There is nothing to prove. The timeline shows the progression.
Exactly, it shows the PROGRESSION. However, it doesn't show a
CORRELATION. It's your job to show the CORRELATION, and you have
failed MISERABLY.
Your inability to correlate it is what I see.
This is about you and your claim that RvW
caused the oil embargo. Trying to demonize me isn't going to work.
Either prove your claim or admit defeat.
Sorry. You are resisting my attempt to free the USA from the noosegrip
of
OPEC.
Prove your claim, *****.
That gas prices are so high now and that they escalated so much after
1973?
That doesn't prove they're related. How many times does this have to
be explained to you?
LOL!!!!!
Seeing you squirm is amusing.
Recall the tobacco wars where cause and effect was not proven
yet
the
tobacco industry was still discipilined.
So what.
Precedent.
Irrelevant *****. Prove your claim.
Precedent is *****?
Do you not understand the word IRRELEVANT, fucktard?
I sure do. Seems to me you don't.
If you did, you wouldn't have asked such a stupid question.
Look it up, and
then get back to proving your claim that the oil embargo was a result
of RvW.
You want to prove that it had nothing to do with it?
You claimed it DID, therefore, it's your job to prove YOUR claim,
asswipe.
*****. It is your incessant bitching about it which is evident.
I am NOT required to prove it.
The data is already there.
How's this relevant to your claim that RvW caused the oil
embargo. Here's your free clue: it's not.
Your claim that it isn't related is proven how, where?
"empirical data" LOL!!!!!
You think that is a joke?
No, I think YOU are a joke, and that was a direct jab at your
stupidity.
Which did not land.
How do you hit that which is not there?
I said I was aiming at you stupidity, not your brain.
You missed. You can not hit a non-existent thing.
That's why he wasn't aiming at your brain.
Zeligg
"Prayer has no place in the public schools,
just like facts have no place in organized religion."
- Superintendent Chalmers, The Simpsons
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ricky Ticket" |
|
| Title: Re: Johnny's birth is reponsible for tragic historical events - the timeline proves it |
25 Aug 2005 12:42:33 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 9:39:43 -0400, Johnny wrote
(in message <lRjPe.29532$xW.20538@bignews6.bellsouth.net>):
That doesn't prove they're related. How many times does this have to
be explained to you?
LOL!!!!!
Seeing you squirm is amusing.
From here it looks like you squirming and angering your god with your
arrogance. :o)
--
łGet off the crack *****.˛ --Robert Heishman (AKA Osprey)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Johnny finally admit he doesn't have evidence to support hisclaim. |
24 Aug 2005 09:22:46 AM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124849721.775078.242360@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124841764.605054.289950@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
You seem to think that the people of the USA are fodder for OPEC.
Whose side are you on?
Stick to the topic, asswipe.
What topic is more important than the people of the USA to a US Citizen?
Sorry that you are showing yourself to be for OPEC financed operations of
the arab terroorist groups.
Diversionary tactic noted.
I see you doing that, again.
Now, kindly go ***** yourself. When you're
done, you can then prove that the oil embargo was a result of RvW was
you claimed.
There is nothing to prove. The timeline shows the progression.
What progression?
This is about you and your claim that RvW
caused the oil embargo. Trying to demonize me isn't going to work.
Either prove your claim or admit defeat.
Sorry. You are resisting my attempt to free the USA from the noosegrip of
OPEC.
Prove your claim, *****.
That gas prices are so high now and that they escalated so much after 1973?
That's a logical fallacy, called "Coincidental Correlation," or, if you
prefer the latin: Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
It bascially means that, because A happened after B, A caused B.
To see why this doesn't work, imagine the following:
I drop a pen. Five seconds later, in the parking lot outside, a man
closes his car door on his fingers.
Therefore, the dropping of my pen caused the man to shut his fingers in
the door.
What you are saying is that, because Roe V Wade happened, gas prices
went up. Roe V Wade is as irrelevant to oil prices as the dropping of
my pen is to the man closing his fingers in the door.
Recall the tobacco wars where cause and effect was not proven yet
the
tobacco industry was still discipilined.
So what.
Precedent.
Irrelevant *****. Prove your claim.
Precedent is *****?
Do you not understand the word IRRELEVANT, fucktard?
I sure do. Seems to me you don't.
It seems like you don't.
Look it up, and
then get back to proving your claim that the oil embargo was a result
of RvW.
You want to prove that it had nothing to do with it?
I want you to prove it had something to do with it.
How's this relevant to your claim that RvW caused the oil
embargo. Here's your free clue: it's not.
Your claim that it isn't related is proven how, where?
"empirical data" LOL!!!!!
You think that is a joke?
No, I think YOU are a joke, and that was a direct jab at your
stupidity.
Which did not land.
How do you hit that which is not there?
I'm asking you to provide
proof of your claim,
Go ahead. Saddle yourself with the burden of proving that they are NOT
related.
It's your claim, fucknut. And, a negative can't be proven.
To less knowledgeable minds like yours negatives can not be proven.
Prove you're NOT a homosexual then.
I am heterosexual. Therefore, I am NOT homosexual.
Prove that you are a heterosexual.
You can do that right after you
prove that the oil embargo was a result of RvW.
Is that a negative?
No. It's a positive assertion. A negative assertion is one that goes
like: "Roe V. Wade was not the cause of the increase in oil prices."
Therefore,
the burden of proof lies on you.
Look at the gas prices now.
So what.
You wanna help to do something about it or do you want to keep on ranting
your diversions?
These are your diversions.
That doesn't prove it was a result of RvW as you claimed.
Can you prove it had nothing to do with it?
Can't prove a negative. Try again.
Lack of evidence to support you stupdity is also noted.
There is no lack of evidence in my assertion.
Then show your evidence. And circumstantial evidence is not evidence.
The lack of evidence is with you.
With you? Yup.
Nice job,
fucktard.
I know I do good work.
*snort*
But, as usual, you keep running away,
just like the ***** that you are.
Me running?
I drive a car normally.
More evidence that you refuse to prove your claim. Nice job, fucktard.
Trying to change the subject won't work. Either prove your claim or
it will be shown that you're full of *****.
Continual rants do nothing to disprove me.
Nor does your post hoc logical fallacies.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Johnny finally admit he doesn't have evidence to support his claim. |
25 Aug 2005 08:15:59 AM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:Wo%Oe.15636$M3.9132@trnddc05...
Johnny wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124849721.775078.242360@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124841764.605054.289950@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
You seem to think that the people of the USA are fodder for OPEC.
Whose side are you on?
Stick to the topic, asswipe.
What topic is more important than the people of the USA to a US Citizen?
Sorry that you are showing yourself to be for OPEC financed operations
of
the arab terroorist groups.
Diversionary tactic noted.
I see you doing that, again.
Now, kindly go ***** yourself. When you're
done, you can then prove that the oil embargo was a result of RvW was
you claimed.
There is nothing to prove. The timeline shows the progression.
What progression?
This is about you and your claim that RvW
caused the oil embargo. Trying to demonize me isn't going to work.
Either prove your claim or admit defeat.
Sorry. You are resisting my attempt to free the USA from the noosegrip
of
OPEC.
Prove your claim, *****.
That gas prices are so high now and that they escalated so much after
1973?
That's a logical fallacy, called "Coincidental Correlation,"
Coincidence - coincide.
While you may think it to be mere happenstance I see it much differently.
or, if you prefer the latin: Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
It bascially means that, because A happened after B, A caused B.
Oops. Anyone really gonna believe that *****?
To see why this doesn't work, imagine the following:
I drop a pen. Five seconds later, in the parking lot outside, a man
closes his car door on his fingers.
Therefore, the dropping of my pen caused the man to shut his fingers in
the door.
Apples/oranges.
Your analogy is inapplicable.
What you are saying is that, because Roe V Wade happened, gas prices went
up.
Is that what I said verbatim, misquoter?
Roe V Wade is as irrelevant to oil prices as the dropping of my pen is to
the man closing his fingers in the door.
*****.
And, I know so.
Are you related to Bin Laden?
Recall the tobacco wars where cause and effect was not proven yet
the
tobacco industry was still discipilined.
So what.
Precedent.
Irrelevant *****. Prove your claim.
Precedent is *****?
Do you not understand the word IRRELEVANT, fucktard?
I sure do. Seems to me you don't.
It seems like you don't.
LOL!
Wanna keep on showing yourself to be the dumbass in here?
Doesn't bother me to see you do that.
But, it would be more pleasing to see that you actually understand something
instead of reading your ignorant ***** rants.
Look it up, and
then get back to proving your claim that the oil embargo was a result
of RvW.
You want to prove that it had nothing to do with it?
I want you to prove it had something to do with it.
You are NOT my master.
Remember that, flunkyboy.
What you want and what I do are not necessarily congruent.
You want me to prove it, in writing?
You got a comission to grant to me to pay me for the work I would do to
perform such a task?
If not, then shut your trap and stop acting as if you have some sort of
power to make me do as you say.
How's this relevant to your claim that RvW caused the oil
embargo. Here's your free clue: it's not.
Your claim that it isn't related is proven how, where?
"empirical data" LOL!!!!!
You think that is a joke?
No, I think YOU are a joke, and that was a direct jab at your
stupidity.
Which did not land.
How do you hit that which is not there?
I'm asking you to provide
proof of your claim,
Go ahead. Saddle yourself with the burden of proving that they are NOT
related.
It's your claim, fucknut. And, a negative can't be proven.
To less knowledgeable minds like yours negatives can not be proven.
Prove you're NOT a homosexual then.
I am heterosexual. Therefore, I am NOT homosexual.
Prove that you are a heterosexual.
Why?
I already wrote the axiomatic statement. "I am heterosexual." Axioms can not
be disproven.
You can do that right after you
prove that the oil embargo was a result of RvW.
Is that a negative?
No. It's a positive assertion. A negative assertion is one that goes
like: "Roe V. Wade was not the cause of the increase in oil prices."
I am NOT a homosexual is a negative, and I proved it in my case.
Your false belief that negatives can not be proven is total *****.
Therefore,
the burden of proof lies on you.
Look at the gas prices now.
So what.
You wanna help to do something about it or do you want to keep on ranting
your diversions?
These are your diversions.
Nah. Your tactic has been trumped. It doesn't work for you now.
Your accusation that I am practicing diversion is your diversionary tactic.
It doesn't work with me.
That doesn't prove it was a result of RvW as you claimed.
Can you prove it had nothing to do with it?
Can't prove a negative. Try again.
*****. That is an antiquated, fallacious, disproven statement.
Negatives can be proven, and such has been accomplished many times already.
Your stupid "can't" ***** does not fly.
Lack of evidence to support you stupdity is also noted.
There is no lack of evidence in my assertion.
Then show your evidence.
Why? Because you say to do it?
Bye, underling.
And circumstantial evidence is not evidence.
Bye, underling.
The lack of evidence is with you.
With you? Yup.
You lack any evidence whatsoever to negate my assertion.
You have nothing real, factual, substantive to negate my assertion with.
Why can't you refute my assertion with facts instead of demanding that I
prove something that you did not show a counterexample to yet?
I know how to disprove statements.
Do you?
Your meager, uncalled for challenges are refuted by me.
Nice job,
fucktard.
I know I do good work.
*snort*
You are a pig?
But, as usual, you keep running away,
just like the ***** that you are.
Me running?
I drive a car normally.
More evidence that you refuse to prove your claim. Nice job, fucktard.
Trying to change the subject won't work. Either prove your claim or
it will be shown that you're full of *****.
Continual rants do nothing to disprove me.
Nor does your post hoc logical fallacies.
Your meager, uncalled for challenges are refuted by your failure to
demonstrate anything to the contrary to my assertion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Johnny finally admit he doesn't have evidence to support his claim. |
25 Aug 2005 06:20:07 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:Wo%Oe.15636$M3.9132@trnddc05...
Johnny wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124849721.775078.242360@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
[...]
Sorry. You are resisting my attempt to free the USA from the noosegrip of
OPEC.
Prove your claim, *****.
That gas prices are so high now and that they escalated so much after
1973?
That's a logical fallacy, called "Coincidental Correlation,"
Coincidence - coincide.
....which does nothing to prove your assertion.
While you may think it to be mere happenstance I see it much differently.
You see a lot of things that have nothing to do with the real world. You've
never been reticent about that.
or, if you prefer the latin: Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
It bascially means that, because A happened after B, A caused B.
Oops. Anyone really gonna believe that *****?
You're the one making that claim, by your assertion. (Are you sure you went
to Furman? You have to be literate to attend, and you're not proving you
comprehend simple declarations written in your supposed first language.)
To see why this doesn't work, imagine the following:
I drop a pen. Five seconds later, in the parking lot outside, a man
closes his car door on his fingers.
Therefore, the dropping of my pen caused the man to shut his fingers in
the door.
Apples/oranges. Your analogy is inapplicable.
So why are YOU using it?
What you are saying is that, because Roe V Wade happened, gas prices went
up.
Is that what I said verbatim, misquoter?
It's what you said. (Your attempt to distract is noted.)
Roe V Wade is as irrelevant to oil prices as the dropping of my pen is to
the man closing his fingers in the door.
*****. And, I know so.
You claim to know. It's just a coincidence you're incapable of proving it.
Are you related to Bin Laden?
You have a problem with people asking you for proof of your delusional
assertions?
[...]
Precedent is *****?
Do you not understand the word IRRELEVANT, fucktard?
I sure do. Seems to me you don't.
It seems like you don't.
LOL! Wanna keep on showing yourself to be the dumbass in here?
....says the lunatic in South Carolina who regularly proclaims himself to be
superior to the rest of us.
Doesn't bother me to see you do that. But, it would be more pleasing to see
that you actually understand something instead of reading your ignorant *****
rants.
If you were sane, you'd have learned to ignore him long ago.
Look it up, and then get back to proving your claim that the oil embargo
was a result of RvW.
You want to prove that it had nothing to do with it?
I want you to prove it had something to do with it.
You are NOT my master.
No, the mental-health people in South Carolina get that onerous
responsibility.
Remember that, flunkyboy. What you want and what I do are not necessarily
congruent.
44 years old, and you finally figured that out? Congratulations.
You want me to prove it, in writing?
I'd appreciate it if you'd prove it at all.
You got a comission to grant to me to pay me for the work I would do to
perform such a task?
Do you have any intent of actually being honest about the alleged work you
would do? (Not bloody likely, given your mental condition.)
If not, then shut your trap and stop acting as if you have some sort of
power to make me do as you say.
If you're so smart, why is it you have yet to learn how to ignore people?
[...]
To less knowledgeable minds like yours negatives can not be proven.
Prove you're NOT a homosexual then.
I am heterosexual. Therefore, I am NOT homosexual.
Prove that you are a heterosexual.
Why? I already wrote the axiomatic statement. "I am heterosexual." Axioms
can not be disproven.
Idiot. You made an assertion, therefore you get to prove you're
heterosexual. You don't get to control the discussion because you don't want
to be questioned.
You can do that right after you
prove that the oil embargo was a result of RvW.
Is that a negative?
No. It's a positive assertion. A negative assertion is one that goes
like: "Roe V. Wade was not the cause of the increase in oil prices."
I am NOT a homosexual is a negative, and I proved it in my case.
You asserted it, Brainiac. That's not the same thing.
Your false belief that negatives can not be proven is total *****.
Thanks for confirming that you never bothered to learn that in school.
[...]
Look at the gas prices now.
So what.
You wanna help to do something about it or do you want to keep on ranting
your diversions?
These are your diversions.
Nah. Your tactic has been trumped. It doesn't work for you now.
You type this crap while looking in the mirror, don't you?
Your accusation that I am practicing diversion is your diversionary tactic.
It doesn't work with me.
It's an accurate response to your insanity.
That doesn't prove it was a result of RvW as you claimed.
Can you prove it had nothing to do with it?
Can't prove a negative. Try again.
*****. That is an antiquated, fallacious, disproven statement.
Really? Prove that you don't owe me $10 million.
Negatives can be proven, and such has been accomplished many times already.
Your stupid "can't" ***** does not fly.
Your insanity doesn't excuse you.
Lack of evidence to support you stupdity is also noted.
There is no lack of evidence in my assertion.
Then show your evidence.
Why? Because you say to do it? Bye, underling.
Typical Wentzky: it's not your job to prove your claims, but everyone else
has to.
And circumstantial evidence is not evidence.
Bye, underling.
You're incapable of ignoring sane people.
The lack of evidence is with you.
With you? Yup.
You lack any evidence whatsoever to negate my assertion.
You have zero evidence to support it. In other words, you've struck out yet
again.
You have nothing real, factual, substantive to negate my assertion with. Why
can't you refute my assertion with facts instead of demanding that I prove
something that you did not show a counterexample to yet? I know how to
disprove statements. Do you? Your meager, uncalled for challenges are
refuted by me.
That's because you know you can't prove your fairy tales, lying loon.
Nice job, fucktard.
I know I do good work.
*snort*
You are a pig?
Unlike you, a pig is honest.
[...]
Me running? I drive a car normally.
More evidence that you refuse to prove your claim. Nice job, fucktard.
Trying to change the subject won't work. Either prove your claim or
it will be shown that you're full of *****.
Continual rants do nothing to disprove me.
Nor does your post hoc logical fallacies.
Your meager, uncalled for challenges are refuted by your failure to
demonstrate anything to the contrary to my assertion.
....says the Clown of Anderson County, who refuses to back up his own
assertions.
Don't worry. The men in the white coats will be coming soon to take you back
to the Home.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Chicago 5, Houston 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Friday, October 7 vs. San Antonio, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Johnny finally admit he doesn't have evidence to support his claim. |
26 Aug 2005 10:00:44 AM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szky86pa9js.fsf@eris.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:Wo%Oe.15636$M3.9132@trnddc05...
Johnny wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124849721.775078.242360@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
[...]
Sorry. You are resisting my attempt to free the USA from the noosegrip
of
OPEC.
Prove your claim, *****.
That gas prices are so high now and that they escalated so much after
1973?
That's a logical fallacy, called "Coincidental Correlation,"
Coincidence - coincide.
...which does nothing to prove your assertion.
While you may think it to be mere happenstance I see it much differently.
You see a lot of things that have nothing to do with the real world.
You've
never been reticent about that.
or, if you prefer the latin: Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
It bascially means that, because A happened after B, A caused B.
Oops. Anyone really gonna believe that *****?
You're the one making that claim, by your assertion. (Are you sure you
went
to Furman? You have to be literate to attend, and you're not proving you
comprehend simple declarations written in your supposed first language.)
"because A happened after B, A caused B."
Where was that even alluded to in any of this other than by DanielSan?
And, like I already said, Who is gonna belive that a subsequent event caused
a preceding event to occur?
What about pre hoc ergo propter hoc?
To see why this doesn't work, imagine the following:
I drop a pen. Five seconds later, in the parking lot outside, a man
closes his car door on his fingers.
Therefore, the dropping of my pen caused the man to shut his fingers in
the door.
Apples/oranges. Your analogy is inapplicable.
So why are YOU using it?
Dropping a pen is Roe V Wade?
What you are saying is that, because Roe V Wade happened, gas prices
went
up.
Is that what I said verbatim, misquoter?
It's what you said. (Your attempt to distract is noted.)
Ok. What if it did have something to do with it?
You do not know who OPEC is and what their religion and way of life are?
You forgot that the Iraq thing and current oil prices are related?
What part of the world are you not cognizant of?
Roe V Wade is as irrelevant to oil prices as the dropping of my pen is
to
the man closing his fingers in the door.
*****. And, I know so.
You claim to know. It's just a coincidence you're incapable of proving
it.
Incapable?
How about I really am not feeling the motivation to call King Fahd, or did
he die recently, in which case I would really not be calling him.
Are you related to Bin Laden?
You have a problem with people asking you for proof of your delusional
assertions?
When will you notice the real agenda in the USA is to serve the USA?
[...]
Precedent is *****?
Do you not understand the word IRRELEVANT, fucktard?
I sure do. Seems to me you don't.
It seems like you don't.
LOL! Wanna keep on showing yourself to be the dumbass in here?
...says the lunatic in South Carolina who regularly proclaims himself to
be
superior to the rest of us.
Doesn't bother me to see you do that. But, it would be more pleasing to
see
that you actually understand something instead of reading your ignorant
*****
rants.
If you were sane, you'd have learned to ignore him long ago.
Look it up, and then get back to proving your claim that the oil
embargo
was a result of RvW.
You want to prove that it had nothing to do with it?
I want you to prove it had something to do with it.
You are NOT my master.
No, the mental-health people in South Carolina get that onerous
responsibility.
You mean the gay marriage endorsing APA somehow is qualified to manage
someone that disagrees with them?
That isn't very nice.
Remember that, flunkyboy. What you want and what I do are not necessarily
congruent.
44 years old, and you finally figured that out? Congratulations.
You want me to prove it, in writing?
I'd appreciate it if you'd prove it at all.
You got a comission to grant to me to pay me for the work I would do to
perform such a task?
Do you have any intent of actually being honest about the alleged work you
would do? (Not bloody likely, given your mental condition.)
If not, then shut your trap and stop acting as if you have some sort of
power to make me do as you say.
If you're so smart, why is it you have yet to learn how to ignore people?
[...]
To less knowledgeable minds like yours negatives can not be proven.
Prove you're NOT a homosexual then.
I am heterosexual. Therefore, I am NOT homosexual.
Prove that you are a heterosexual.
Why? I already wrote the axiomatic statement. "I am heterosexual." Axioms
can not be disproven.
Idiot. You made an assertion, therefore you get to prove you're
heterosexual. You don't get to control the discussion because you don't
want
to be questioned.
How would I prove it?
You can do that right after you
prove that the oil embargo was a result of RvW.
Is that a negative?
No. It's a positive assertion. A negative assertion is one that goes
like: "Roe V. Wade was not the cause of the increase in oil prices."
I am NOT a homosexual is a negative, and I proved it in my case.
You asserted it, Brainiac. That's not the same thing.
The statement is logically valid.
If A, then B.
You wouldn't disagree with that much, would you?
Your false belief that negatives can not be proven is total *****.
Thanks for confirming that you never bothered to learn that in school.
Negatives can and have been proven.
Why do you choose to live in denial of that demonstrated achivement?
[...]
Look at the gas prices now.
So what.
You wanna help to do something about it or do you want to keep on
ranting
your diversions?
These are your diversions.
Nah. Your tactic has been trumped. It doesn't work for you now.
You type this crap while looking in the mirror, don't you?
Your accusation that I am practicing diversion is your diversionary
tactic.
It doesn't work with me.
It's an accurate response to your insanity.
That doesn't prove it was a result of RvW as you claimed.
Can you prove it had nothing to do with it?
Can't prove a negative. Try again.
*****. That is an antiquated, fallacious, disproven statement.
Really? Prove that you don't owe me $10 million.
I don't owe you $10 million.
I have no indebtedness to you.
To make a monetary claim on me you would need proof of your claim.
Satisfied?
Negatives can be proven, and such has been accomplished many times
already.
Your stupid "can't" ***** does not fly.
Your insanity doesn't excuse you.
Lack of evidence to support you stupdity is also noted.
There is no lack of evidence in my assertion.
Then show your evidence.
Why? Because you say to do it? Bye, underling.
Typical Wentzky: it's not your job to prove your claims, but everyone
else
has to.
And circumstantial evidence is not evidence.
Bye, underling.
You're incapable of ignoring sane people.
The lack of evidence is with you.
With you? Yup.
You lack any evidence whatsoever to negate my assertion.
You have zero evidence to support it. In other words, you've struck out
yet
again.
If I am not disproven, my claim stands as valid, at least in speculation.
You have nothing real, factual, substantive to negate my assertion with.
Why
can't you refute my assertion with facts instead of demanding that I prove
something that you did not show a counterexample to yet? I know how to
disprove statements. Do you? Your meager, uncalled for challenges are
refuted by me.
That's because you know you can't prove your fairy tales, lying loon.
Why did no one disprove me then?
Nice job, fucktard.
I know I do good work.
*snort*
You are a pig?
Unlike you, a pig is honest.
[...]
Me running? I drive a car normally.
More evidence that you refuse to prove your claim. Nice job, fucktard.
Trying to change the subject won't work. Either prove your claim or
it will be shown that you're full of *****.
Continual rants do nothing to disprove me.
Nor does your post hoc logical fallacies.
Your meager, uncalled for challenges are refuted by your failure to
demonstrate anything to the contrary to my assertion.
...says the Clown of Anderson County, who refuses to back up his own
assertions.
Why do I need to back it up when there is NOTHING to counter it?
Don't worry. The men in the white coats will be coming soon to take you
back
to the Home.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Chicago 5, Houston 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Friday, October 7 vs. San Antonio, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Johnny finally admit he doesn't have evidence to support his claim. |
26 Aug 2005 02:18:55 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szky86pa9js.fsf@eris.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
[...Wentzky's refusal to understand "post hoc, ergo propter hoc"...]
Oops. Anyone really gonna believe that *****?
You're the one making that claim, by your assertion. (Are you sure you
went to Furman? You have to be literate to attend, and you're not proving
you comprehend simple declarations written in your supposed first
language.)
"because A happened after B, A caused B." Where was that even alluded to in
any of this other than by DanielSan? And, like I already said, Who is gonna
belive that a subsequent event caused a preceding event to occur? What about
pre hoc ergo propter hoc?
What about it? It's your creation. Take the blame yourself.
[...]
Therefore, the dropping of my pen caused the man to shut his fingers in
the door.
Apples/oranges. Your analogy is inapplicable.
So why are YOU using it?
Dropping a pen is Roe V Wade?
Evasion noted.
What you are saying is that, because Roe V Wade happened, gas prices
went
up.
Is that what I said verbatim, misquoter?
It's what you said. (Your attempt to distract is noted.)
Ok. What if it did have something to do with it?
You have to prove that.
You do not know who OPEC is and what their religion and way of life are?
I don't know why their religion and way of life are relevant.
You forgot that the Iraq thing and current oil prices are related?
We're not talking about current oil prices, loon. We're talking about how (in
your shredded imagination) RvW was responsible for the first oil embargo.
What part of the world are you not cognizant of?
The make-believe world you live in.
Roe V Wade is as irrelevant to oil prices as the dropping of my pen is
to the man closing his fingers in the door.
*****. And, I know so.
You claim to know. It's just a coincidence you're incapable of proving
it.
Incapable?
You're completely incapable of reasoning when it's not convenient to your
agenda of control over others.
How about I really am not feeling the motivation to call King Fahd, or did
he die recently, in which case I would really not be calling him.
You're not motivated to do anything without demanding to be paid for it, leech.
Are you related to Bin Laden?
You have a problem with people asking you for proof of your delusional
assertions?
When will you notice the real agenda in the USA is to serve the USA?
About the same time that you notice that you don't speak for the rest of us in
this country (or anywhere else).
[...]
You are NOT my master.
No, the mental-health people in South Carolina get that onerous
responsibility.
You mean the gay marriage endorsing APA somehow is qualified to manage
someone that disagrees with them? That isn't very nice.
They'll get stuck with you, sooner or later.
[...]
Why? I already wrote the axiomatic statement. "I am heterosexual." Axioms
can not be disproven.
Idiot. You made an assertion, therefore you get to prove you're
heterosexual. You don't get to control the discussion because you don't
want to be questioned.
How would I prove it?
Start with affidavits from those who know you. (Of course, they should know
that lying on an affidavit can carry a penalty, since it is a legal document.)
[...]
I am NOT a homosexual is a negative, and I proved it in my case.
You asserted it, Brainiac. That's not the same thing.
The statement is logically valid. If A, then B. You wouldn't disagree with
that much, would you?
I will disagree with your attempts to evade proving your assertion.
Your false belief that negatives can not be proven is total *****.
Thanks for confirming that you never bothered to learn that in school.
Negatives can and have been proven.
Why do you choose to live in denial of that demonstrated achivement?
You can quit projecting your psychoses on others.
[...]
*****. That is an antiquated, fallacious, disproven statement.
Really? Prove that you don't owe me $10 million.
I don't owe you $10 million.
Prove it.
I have no indebtedness to you.
Prove it.
To make a monetary claim on me you would need proof of your claim.
Satisfied?
Congratulations. You've just shown what an ***** you are. Anyone who claims
something has to prove their claim, but you don't? Maybe that's why you don't
get any respect.
[...]
You lack any evidence whatsoever to negate my assertion.
You have zero evidence to support it. In other words, you've struck out
yet again.
If I am not disproven, my claim stands as valid, at least in speculation.
You mean, at least in your opinion.
You have nothing real, factual, substantive to negate my assertion with.
Why can't you refute my assertion with facts instead of demanding that I
prove something that you did not show a counterexample to yet? I know how
to disprove statements. Do you? Your meager, uncalled for challenges are
refuted by me.
That's because you know you can't prove your fairy tales, lying loon.
Why did no one disprove me then?
No one has to disprove you, moron. You have to prove yourself. You obviously
will never be able to do that much.
[...]
Your meager, uncalled for challenges are refuted by your failure to
demonstrate anything to the contrary to my assertion.
...says the Clown of Anderson County, who refuses to back up his own
assertions.
Why do I need to back it up when there is NOTHING to counter it?
I sincerely hope you get to try that tactic in court. I hope you enjoy
learning what "contempt of court" means.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Chicago 5, Houston 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Friday, October 7 vs. San Antonio, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Johnny finally admit he doesn't have evidence to support his claim. |
27 Aug 2005 01:52:41 PM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szk4q9ccxr4.fsf@eris.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szky86pa9js.fsf@eris.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
[...Wentzky's refusal to understand "post hoc, ergo propter hoc"...]
Oops. Anyone really gonna believe that *****?
You're the one making that claim, by your assertion. (Are you sure you
went to Furman? You have to be literate to attend, and you're not
proving
you comprehend simple declarations written in your supposed first
language.)
"because A happened after B, A caused B." Where was that even alluded to
in
any of this other than by DanielSan? And, like I already said, Who is
gonna
belive that a subsequent event caused a preceding event to occur? What
about
pre hoc ergo propter hoc?
What about it? It's your creation. Take the blame yourself.
[...]
Therefore, the dropping of my pen caused the man to shut his fingers
in
the door.
Apples/oranges. Your analogy is inapplicable.
So why are YOU using it?
Dropping a pen is Roe V Wade?
Evasion noted.
What you are saying is that, because Roe V Wade happened, gas prices
went
up.
Is that what I said verbatim, misquoter?
It's what you said. (Your attempt to distract is noted.)
Ok. What if it did have something to do with it?
You have to prove that.
You do not know who OPEC is and what their religion and way of life are?
I don't know why their religion and way of life are relevant.
You forgot that the Iraq thing and current oil prices are related?
We're not talking about current oil prices, loon. We're talking about how
(in
your shredded imagination) RvW was responsible for the first oil embargo.
What part of the world are you not cognizant of?
The make-believe world you live in.
Roe V Wade is as irrelevant to oil prices as the dropping of my pen
is
to the man closing his fingers in the door.
*****. And, I know so.
You claim to know. It's just a coincidence you're incapable of proving
it.
Incapable?
You're completely incapable of reasoning when it's not convenient to your
agenda of control over others.
How about I really am not feeling the motivation to call King Fahd, or did
he die recently, in which case I would really not be calling him.
You're not motivated to do anything without demanding to be paid for it,
leech.
Are you related to Bin Laden?
You have a problem with people asking you for proof of your delusional
assertions?
When will you notice the real agenda in the USA is to serve the USA?
About the same time that you notice that you don't speak for the rest of
us in
this country (or anywhere else).
[...]
You are NOT my master.
No, the mental-health people in South Carolina get that onerous
responsibility.
You mean the gay marriage endorsing APA somehow is qualified to manage
someone that disagrees with them? That isn't very nice.
They'll get stuck with you, sooner or later.
[...]
Why? I already wrote the axiomatic statement. "I am heterosexual."
Axioms
can not be disproven.
Idiot. You made an assertion, therefore you get to prove you're
heterosexual. You don't get to control the discussion because you don't
want to be questioned.
How would I prove it?
Start with affidavits from those who know you. (Of course, they should
know
that lying on an affidavit can carry a penalty, since it is a legal
document.)
[...]
I am NOT a homosexual is a negative, and I proved it in my case.
You asserted it, Brainiac. That's not the same thing.
The statement is logically valid. If A, then B. You wouldn't disagree
with
that much, would you?
I will disagree with your attempts to evade proving your assertion.
Your false belief that negatives can not be proven is total *****.
Thanks for confirming that you never bothered to learn that in school.
Negatives can and have been proven.
Why do you choose to live in denial of that demonstrated achivement?
You can quit projecting your psychoses on others.
[...]
*****. That is an antiquated, fallacious, disproven statement.
Really? Prove that you don't owe me $10 million.
I don't owe you $10 million.
Prove it.
I have no indebtedness to you.
Prove it.
To make a monetary claim on me you would need proof of your claim.
Satisfied?
Congratulations. You've just shown what an ***** you are. Anyone who
claims
something has to prove their claim, but you don't? Maybe that's why you
don't
get any respect.
[...]
You lack any evidence whatsoever to negate my assertion.
You have zero evidence to support it. In other words, you've struck out
yet again.
If I am not disproven, my claim stands as valid, at least in speculation.
You mean, at least in your opinion.
You have nothing real, factual, substantive to negate my assertion with.
Why can't you refute my assertion with facts instead of demanding that I
prove something that you did not show a counterexample to yet? I know
how
to disprove statements. Do you? Your meager, uncalled for challenges
are
refuted by me.
That's because you know you can't prove your fairy tales, lying loon.
Why did no one disprove me then?
No one has to disprove you, moron. You have to prove yourself. You
obviously
will never be able to do that much.
[...]
Your meager, uncalled for challenges are refuted by your failure to
demonstrate anything to the contrary to my assertion.
...says the Clown of Anderson County, who refuses to back up his own
assertions.
Why do I need to back it up when there is NOTHING to counter it?
I sincerely hope you get to try that tactic in court. I hope you enjoy
learning what "contempt of court" means.
Judgement rendered in my favor by DEFAULT. No contest. Inadequate defense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Johnny finally admit he doesn't have evidence to support his claim. |
27 Aug 2005 09:32:26 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szk4q9ccxr4.fsf@eris.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szky86pa9js.fsf@eris.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
[around 200 lines that Whacko Wentzky couldn't be bothered to respond to,
deleted]
Your meager, uncalled for challenges are refuted by your failure to
demonstrate anything to the contrary to my assertion.
...says the Clown of Anderson County, who refuses to back up his own
assertions.
Why do I need to back it up when there is NOTHING to counter it?
I sincerely hope you get to try that tactic in court. I hope you enjoy
learning what "contempt of court" means.
Judgement rendered in my favor by DEFAULT. No contest. Inadequate defense.
Maybe you'll learn something if you try that in a court, and you get the
mother of all *****-slaps for it...then again, you've not yet shown you're
capable of learning.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Chicago 5, Houston 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Friday, October 7 vs. San Antonio, 7:35
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: Johnny finally admit he doesn't have evidence to support hisclaim. |
27 Aug 2005 02:01:29 PM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
I sincerely hope you get to try that tactic in court. I hope you enjoy
learning what "contempt of court" means.
Judgement rendered in my favor by DEFAULT. No contest. Inadequate defense.
....against you.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Johnny finally admit he doesn't have evidence to support his claim. |
27 Aug 2005 09:33:41 PM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> writes:
Johnny wrote:
I sincerely hope you get to try that tactic in court. I hope you enjoy
learning what "contempt of court" means.
Judgement rendered in my favor by DEFAULT. No contest. Inadequate defense.
...against you.
Wentzky's the most certifiable loon I've seen in this forum since the days of
DJR. (I know, I'm showing my age.)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Chicago 5, Houston 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Friday, October 7 vs. San Antonio, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "Louise Mallard" |
|
| Title: Re: Johnny finally admit he doesn't have evidence to support his claim. |
28 Aug 2005 08:34:44 AM |
|
|
On 27 Aug 2005 21:33:41 -0500, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com>
wrote:
--sexkitten-- <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> writes:
Johnny wrote:
I sincerely hope you get to try that tactic in court. I hope you enjoy
learning what "contempt of court" means.
Judgement rendered in my favor by DEFAULT. No contest. Inadequate defense.
...against you.
Wentzky's the most certifiable loon I've seen in this forum since the days of
DJR. (I know, I'm showing my age.)
Is that the moron who followed you?
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
