Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

So ...


I go to the Mall and I'm browsing for a new watch because my old watch was stolen. I stumble upon this beautifully crafted Guess watch and I want it. I buy it and it costs me around a hundred and forty dollars. Not bad because the watch is pretty nice.

I get home and I'm wearing my kick arse watch. I go bend my wrist to pick up a knife in my silverware drawer and I hear the snap of a gear (Assumption) and the pin shoots backwards and injects into my forearm and breaks skin.

I had to take the pin out with tweezers.


Should I sue? I still haven't taken it back yet because I'm thinking about what I should do.

You should sick your chinchila's of death on the man who sold you the watch.

Don't sue. Go into hiding since the KGB is clearly trying to kill you.

Too bad it wasn't your mouse arm. haermm

I wouldn't sue, it was an accident and you're apparently fine, just take it back and mention what happened. Than ask for a replacement watch or your money back.

Doesn't seem like a serious injury, if you had to have surgery to remove it I would have sued, but for now I'd go with Roland's advice.

No, you shouldn't sue.

It's your fault for spending ridiculous amounts of money on a time telling device, which you can get for $5.

$140, That would have bought a (cheap) hooker, man. ****ed up.

Originally posted by Sorgo X
but i want teh moneyz



You have no case to sue the watch company.

Just do what I said, take it back and get a new watch or get your original $140 back.

Originally posted by BackFire
No, you shouldn't sue.

It's your fault for spending ridiculous amounts of money on a time telling device, which you can get for $5.

$140, That would have bought a (cheap) hooker, man. ****ed up.


It's not my fault. It's the companies fault for making a severely flawed product.

Ridiculous amounts of money? A hundred and forty dollars is not "Ridiculous amounts of money", my friend.

Originally posted by Sorgo X
A gash in my arm is a case. I don't think I explained well enough.

The pin BROKE SKIN and INJECTED directly into my arm. I had to get my tweezers and remove it.


Think of a wooden splinter ... Except a long, silver pin instead.

Cry me a river, you got a metal splinter in your arm.

You're fine enough to type on a keyboard, your forearm is not damaged enough that you have to go to a hospital or consult a doctor, you didn't die or receive any type of poisoning from the product.

Just take the damn thing back, explain what happened and asked for a different model of the same watch or ask for your $140 back.

Originally posted by Sorgo X
It's not my fault. It's the companies fault for making a severely flawed product.

Ridiculous amounts of money? A hundred and forty dollars is not "Ridiculous amounts of money", my friend.

For a watch, I think it is.

I buy watches for 5 dollars, and they last for years.

But now, with cell phones, watches are a thing of the past.

I only buy expensive watches.
They never set, the battery doesn't need replacing within a month, and they're more stylish. shrug

Originally posted by BackFire
For a watch, I think it is.

I buy watches for 5 dollars, and they last for years.

But now, with cell phones, watches are a thing of the past.

My old watch was over three hundred dollars. I got it for my eighteenth birthday and it lasted me over three years and then it got stolen.

Well, at least you didn't pay for it. That's the thing with owning expensive things, they always end up stolen. Or stabbing you in the arm.

Really though, if the gash on your arm is actually bad, which it sounds like it may be. I say go for it, sue. Some lady sued McDonalds for almost a million dollars because she spilt coffee on herself like a dumb wench.

You could probably make good money since it's actually their fault, and not just you being an idiot.

Originally posted by Burnt Pancakes
You should sick your chinchila's of death on the man who sold you the watch.
not sure what a chinchila is, but it sounds painful.

Originally posted by Sorgo X
I'd prefer to cry you an ocean.

I did go to a doctor, actually. Naturally, I had to.

I had a huge gash in my arm and I'm currently wearing a large bandage for it and the possibility of infection is not a scarce possibility.

I am seriously contemplating suing Guess.

It was Silver, for the second time.

From your original post it sounded like a tiny SILVER splinter got injected in your arm, removed with tweezers and that was the end of your injury.

You may "possibly" get an infection? Since you've been to a doctor I assume you were given antibiotics since the skin was broken and a huge gash was in your arm, along with the bandage your chances of infection are slim to none.

You were treated by a doctor, and seem fine now. This injury did not cause you mental anguish, depending on the type of person you are, it may have caused you a small amount of physical anguish as well.

Sue if you want, but considering the facts you have told us, you would get very little in compensation.

What I'm saying is stop acting like you have suffered some horrible injury, take the faulty watch back, and ask for your money back or a new model of the watch you bought.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
maybe that is his spanking hand.

Use the other hand, he could always pretend it's a different girl.

Sorgo, I'm not trying to be an ass but I'm just saying is that from your posts you seem fine and just have a gash in your arm you need to take care of for a few weeks until it heals, to me that's not worth suing over. srug

just rub some dirt on it....you'll be fine.

Originally posted by BackFire
For a watch, I think it is.

I buy watches for 5 dollars, and they last for years.

But now, with cell phones, watches are a thing of the past.

My iPod is my time telling device. 131 When I had a watch all I'd end up with is an ugly ass tan line.

i just look at the sun.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
i just look at the sun.

When there is no sun then?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
i just look at the sun.

That's why you need glasses. 131

i wear glasses, *****.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
i wear glasses, *****.

The sun is the reason. 131

I say we need pictures.


13

Originally posted by Barker
I say we need pictures.


13

Reminds me of when Sorgo (under his old account) claimed to have been stabbed. 131

Originally posted by Tattoo
Reminds me of when Sorgo (under his old account) claimed to have been stabbed. 131
oh yeah, when he was saving the old lady from a mugging?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
oh yeah, when he was saving the old lady from a mugging?

And he broke the other guys wrist.

Originally posted by Tattoo
Reminds me of when Sorgo (under his old account) claimed to have been stabbed. 131
Same shit, different smell.

(Or Account, in this case.)

313

Originally posted by Tattoo
And he broke the other guys wrist.
after being stabbed in the kidneys, right?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
after being stabbed in the kidneys, right?

And being in the hospital close to death with no physical proof.

and wasnt he on the forum hours later telling us this?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
and wasnt he on the forum hours later telling us this?

Yeah, from his hospital bed.

unbelievable.

Weeks later he reveals it to be a hoax even though no one believed him in the first place.

yeah, i remember it now. he and i talked after the fact, and he seemed like an OK dude.

I think I should sue. I've heard more ridiculous lawsuits.

Such as the guy who wanted to sue Michael Jordan because he looked like him.

just return to the store and bark and cry at the clerk for a few hours. seems to be your solution to everything, so why break tradition?

Originally posted by Schecter
just return to the store and bark and cry at the clerk for a few hours. seems to be your solution to everything, so why break tradition?

Originally posted by Schecter
all you do is pick fights and antagonise. thats all you do is annoy people. that is why you fail toto.

And this is your first post in this thread?


When I said you were a raging hypocrite, I wasn't lying.

it was a sound suggestion. maybe if you annoy him enough he'll send you home with 20 new watches, just to shut you up. try it. you obviously have a gift.

i made that watch...3 centuries ago

Originally posted by Schecter
just return to the store and bark and cry at the clerk for a few hours. seems to be your solution to everything, so why break tradition?
Considering you just accused Sorgo X of 'antagonizing', yet come in here and post something that was very obviously condescending and insulting, I'd say you are so full of shit it's bleeding out your ears.
Originally posted by Schecter
it was a sound suggestion. maybe if you annoy him enough he'll send you home with 20 new watches, just to shut you up. try it. you obviously have a gift.
No, it wasn't. At ALL.

As said above, 'antagonizing'.
I disagreed with his decision to sue in the first page too, but I was mature about it and advised him without resorting to patronizing or snobbish, poison-laced comments.

yeah, i said that its seems to be the only reason he is here. nowhere did i suggest that i never antagonised as a reaction. did i? hmmmmm....nope.

Originally posted by Schecter
yeah, i said that its seems to be the only reason he is here. nowhere did i suggest that i never antagonised as a reaction. did i? hmmmmm....nope.
Oh, so what happens in another thread is irrelevant to you in this one and never happened at all?

Wrong again.

there is no place for maturity here.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
there is no place for maturity here.
Sure there is.

It's just we don't SEE it too often.

Originally posted by DarkC
Sure there is.

It's just we don't SEE it too often.
poop.

Originally posted by DarkC
Oh, so what happens in another thread is irrelevant to you in this one and never happened at all?

Wrong again.

no, your little friend needs to experience a buzzkill, which he has no trouble dishing out.

Originally posted by Schecter
no, your little friend needs to experience a buzzkill, which he has no trouble dishing out.
Because Sorgo X has dished out a lot of buzzkill, he 'NEEDS', objectively, to experience one?

Another example of Schecter's "impeccable" logic.

Wrong, yet again.

Originally posted by Schecter
it was a sound suggestion. maybe if you annoy him enough he'll send you home with 20 new watches, just to shut you up. try it. you obviously have a gift.

Did you read my post?

Don't seek excuses, my friend.

You've lost. Leave with that gram of pride you have remaining.

Originally posted by DarkC
Because Sorgo X has dished out a lot of buzzkill, he 'NEEDS', objectively, to experience one?

precisely. isnt it funny how the truth is sometimes spoken in sarcastic rhetoric?

Originally posted by Sorgo X
Did you read my post?

Don't seek excuses, my friend.

You've lost. Leave with that gram of pride you have remaining.

ouch. hallow victory rhetoric gets me every time.

Sorg is on the warpath.

Originally posted by Schecter
precisely. isnt it funny how the truth is sometimes spoken in sarcastic rhetoric?
No, read the rest of my post.

You are quite plainly, wrong.

No train of logic demands that someone who's been 'dishing it out' needs to experience a so-called buzzkill. None.

To you, maybe, because all you seem to come back with are pointless jabs and half-baked bluster.

you crazy canazian bastard.

Originally posted by DarkC
No, read the rest of my post.

You are quite plainly, wrong.

No train of logic demands that someone who's been 'dishing it out' needs to experience a so-called buzzkill. None.

what goes around comes around.
one turn deserves another.
etc.....etc....

Originally posted by DarkC
To you, maybe, because all you seem to come back with are pointless jabs and half-baked bluster.

wait...is this a debate?

Originally posted by Schecter
what goes around comes around.
one turn deserves another.
etc.....etc....
Those are proverbs and cliches. NOT logic.

No, because you don't even have arguments, you just state as though it's plain fact and leave it without support.

Originally posted by DarkC
Those are proverbs and cliches. NOT logic.

proverbs which are based in logic/philosophy/deductive reasoning. none of which is purely objective (as in no logic/philosophy/deductive reasoning of any kind). wow, you really want to argue that to death?

Originally posted by DarkC
No, because you don't even have arguments, you just state as though it's plain fact and leave it without support.

never brought an argument of ideas to this thread...just a suggestion.
btw, isnt it a perfect emo watch? i mean....it cuts you

wow, you've been quoting me for eight minutes. this should be awesome.

Originally posted by Schecter
proverbs which are based in logic/philosophy/deductive reasoning. none of which is purely objective (as in no logic/philosophy/deductive reasoning of any kind). wow, you really want to argue that to death?
Yes, they ARE logic when used in their correct context. Just not the ones you listed, because they are out of context with what's being discussed. Quite simply, if you use a proverb that refers to something else and try to apply it to something completely different, it will not logically make sense.

Take the "What goes up must come down" proverb, if you apply it to an object and gravity, then yes, in all logic gravity pulls it down. If you try and apply it to something like the stock market, your logic fails. Which is what you just did.

And show me where I said that cliches or proverbs as a whole were not logical. Go ahead.

Yes, you did, which I replied to.
Then you take my response and reply to it out of context, stating that it "needs" to happen as if it were irrefutable fact (it isn't). Seems to be a reccurring theme with you.

Originally posted by Schecter
wow, you've been quoting me for eight minutes. this should be awesome.
Wow, you say that as if actually means something important.


You get two and a half stars for bravado! Yay!

Originally posted by DarkC
Yes, they ARE logic when used in their correct context. Just not the ones you listed, because they are out of context with what's being discussed. Quite simply, if you use a proverb that refers to something else and try to apply it to something completely different, it will not logically make sense.

Take the "What goes up must come down" proverb, if you apply it to an object and gravity, then yes, in all logic gravity pulls it down. If you try and apply it to something like the stock market, your logic fails. Which is what you just did.

the stock market has nothing to do with the dealings/misdealings from one individual to another. what an outrageous leap in logic to try to pass off the stock market as an example. are you just replying for the sake of replying? it will probably work since repetative backwards gibberish does get me exhausted and sleepy *fights back yawn*

Originally posted by DarkC
And show me where I said that cliches or proverbs as a whole were not logical. Go ahead.

oh goody...is it my birthday?

Originally posted by DarkC
Those are proverbs and cliches. NOT logic.

you declare that proverbs are not logic. i guess a set of words cannot tangibly BE logic, as it takes the thought to process those words into logic, but do you think you're going to win the internet with your semantics game? thats all you've been doing so far, really.

Originally posted by DarkC
Yes, you did, which I replied to.
Then you take my response and reply to it out of context, stating that it "needs" to happen as if it were irrefutable fact (it isn't). Seems to be a reccurring theme with you.

more semantics gaming.

fine, ill retract my previous statement, publically. in its place:

"IMHO, *insert previous statement*"

Originally posted by DarkC
Wow, you say that as if actually means something important.


You get two and a half stars for bravado! Yay!

im just touched flattered by all the time you're devoting to me. cry

Originally posted by Schecter
ouch. hallow victory rhetoric gets me every time.

I know it does.

Stop attempting to hang on. You've simply lost. You openly displayed hypocrisy. Give up.

Originally posted by Sorgo X
I know it does.

Stop attempting to hang on. You've simply lost. You openly displayed hypocrisy. Give up.

glad you agree that its hallow victory rhetoric

Originally posted by Schecter
glad you agree that its hallow victory rhetoric

The rhetoric doesn't matter. Why?

That one word you placed before "Rhetoric".

It's called "Victory".

Using such words and using them properly are two different things.

Please; Continue digging a deeper hole for yourself. Amuse me, Schecter.

hmmm, perhaps my typo confused you. my appologies.
you must have thought i was calling you a holy man. funny how you didnt question it.

so the correction:

hollow victory rhetoric

Originally posted by Schecter
it always begins the same
its like you're running on a simple program:
To you, it probably does, considering your debating skills. Or lack of. Always the excuses, excuses, excuses.
You've scanned mine, where's your side?

More nonsense from the one and only Schecter. Stick to the topic. I may have steered it off topic slightly, but you're the one acting like it's some silly little game of semantics.

Yes, you did. A series of proverbs that were out of context, therefore they do not follow a logic train of thought, as I stated earlier and backed up with an example.

I even asked you if what you said earlier was meant as objective logic.
Your response?
Originally posted by Schecter
precisely.
Time to eat your words, Schecter.

"One good turn deserves another", and "What goes around comes around" do nothing to justify that you think Sorgo X deserves a buzzkill because he's been dishing it out a lot. Logically, there is no reason why he should.
One describes Karma, and the other describes repayment (both of which are subjective topics anyways).
While they sound similar and might be associated with the "buzzkill" comment, neither do not have anything OBJECTIVE to do with what you said at hand.

Actually, I have, Schecter. It's not that hard.

It's only nonexistant if you didn't bother reading it in its entirety.

You're really just acting ignorant, that's what's going on.

Condescending?

You're accusing me of being condescending, when you are the one analyzing my posts incorrectly and breaking it down with blatantly stupid comments regarding 'semantics'.
Once again, 'logic' from the great Schecter.


No, I didn't declare it moot on the grounds that it was proverbial, as I explained before. Read my posts properly.

I declared it moot on the grounds that it was a proverb or a cliche, and that it was used out of context. I've already explained how and provided an example.

Not difficult to understand, Schecter, providing one has read my posts properly. You said that it was logical for Sorgo X to recieve a buzzcut BECAUSE he was dishing it out. It isn't.

Keep up.

Believe me, I have seen my share of so called 'debaters' who make up for lack of skills with massive truckloads of bluster, the "no effort" clause being one of the oldest excuses in the book.
Doesn't work on me, pal.

It is indeed possible to take it out of context.

The previous example of "What goes up must come down", remember? Not too difficult to do. When you apply it to astrophysics, for example, it becomes illogical.
Explain to me how taking proverbs out of context is impossible.

If I'm a 'tireless rebutter', you're a 'blustering chatterbox', my shortsighted friend.

SUE! Then you can have all the nice watches you want! avatar52202_16

I don't think I've ever been injured because of faulty products.

Originally posted by DarkC
To you, it probably does, considering your debating skills. Or lack of. Always the excuses, excuses, excuses.

empty posturing and yapping

Originally posted by DarkC
You've scanned mine, where's your side?

i guess you just dont understand.

Originally posted by DarkC
More nonsense from the one and only Schecter. Stick to the topic. I may have steered it off topic slightly, but you're the one acting like it's some silly little game of semantics.

more empty posturing and yapping

Originally posted by DarkC
Yes, you did. A series of proverbs that were out of context, therefore they do not follow a logic train of thought, as I stated earlier and backed up with an example.

you simply say they are out of context. that is not proof, that is an opinion.
you cant just say "thats out of context" and expect it to be fact. you also have to explain just why. thats how this whole thing works. i know its alot of work, but in the end all your filler rhetoric and diatribe (your entire post) might seem somehow validated. try it out and let me know how it goes.

Originally posted by DarkC
I even asked you if what you said earlier was meant as objective logic.
Your response?

which proves what? that im a smartass? congrats

Originally posted by DarkC
Time to eat your words, Schecter.

oh yummy! *drools* i love words. *anxiously awaits*

Originally posted by DarkC
"One good turn deserves another", and "What goes around comes around" do nothing to justify that you think Sorgo X deserves a buzzkill because he's been dishing it out a lot. Logically, there is no reason why he should.
One describes Karma, and the other describes repayment (both of which are subjective topics anyways).

i guess by the coffeeshop buddhism definition of karma that would apply, but im afraid any real buddhist will tell you that karma is far more complex than one on one ***-for-tat. so the point is that you cannot declare that "what goes around..." is a direct reference to Buddhist believe because it simply is not. it may be reminiscent of it, but nothing more.

example: "eye for an eye" is an ancient judeo-christian proverb, and by extension muslim. i dont understand why you insist on running off on these little tangents where you apply implication where there is none.


Originally posted by DarkC
While they sound similar and might be associated with the "buzzkill" comment, neither do not have anything OBJECTIVE to do with what you said at hand.

ok, should this be a new drinking game? every time you sy "OBJECTIVE" well chug our beers..



Originally posted by DarkC
Actually, I have, Schecter. It's not that hard.

It's only nonexistant if you didn't bother reading it in its entirety.

You're really just acting ignorant, that's what's going on.

no you clearly have not. parroting the same empty declaration does not pull fact from thin air. that is why you have no proof other than to say "i have proof".

i swear you must have watched way too much star wars. there really is no such thing as the jedi mind trick...sorry

Originally posted by DarkC
Condescending?

You're accusing me of being condescending, when you are the one analyzing my posts incorrectly and breaking it down with blatantly stupid comments regarding 'semantics'.
Once again, 'logic' from the great Schecter.

the point is you seem to want everyone to believe that you're 'above it all' yet here you are rolling around in the mud right next to me. get it now, sunshine? you're a hypocritical yapper. not once have i declared myself above this nonsense, while you clearly have in your apparent role of 'moral luminary of the thread'.


Originally posted by DarkC
No, I didn't declare it moot on the grounds that it was proverbial, as I explained before. Read my posts properly.

*puts on reading glasses*

Originally posted by DarkC
Those are proverbs and cliches. NOT logic.

nope, same thing i read before.
implication being that since they are proverbs, they are moot. its clear as day.


Originally posted by DarkC
I declared it moot on the grounds that it was a proverb or a cliche, and that it was used out of context. I've already explained how and provided an example.

...ah so now you load the point. "AS WELL" as being out of context, which you have yet to prove....which btw is impossible with such a general philosophy. but its cute how you try.

Originally posted by DarkC
Not difficult to understand, Schecter, providing one has read my posts properly. You said that it was logical for Sorgo X to recieve a buzzcut BECAUSE he was dishing it out. It isn't.

its "buzzkill" as in "ruining someone's good vibes" as in "raping the fun", which he loves to do to other people. the theory is that to post in one of his many troll threads would be ineffective in that it does not illustrate to him just what he is doing. imo the only logical means would be to give him "a taste of his own medicine". (more proverb for you)

Originally posted by DarkC
Keep up.

truth is i had no intention of going beyond my first post in this thread. your and sorgo's continuous baiting is why i stay.

here's more proverb for you: "it takes 2 to tango" (in this case its a 3 way tango which is kinda turning me on)

Originally posted by DarkC
Believe me, I have seen my share of so called 'debaters' who make up for lack of skills with massive truckloads of bluster, the "no effort" clause being one of the oldest excuses in the book.
Doesn't work on me, pal.

posturing, strutting, empty words. you really need to trim the useless fat off your posts. have you ever thought of using smilies....i mean....ONLY smilies?

Originally posted by DarkC
It is indeed possible to take it out of context.

yes it is indeed possible. again, is this your "proof" that i quoted proverb in improper context? you're not shitting me?

Originally posted by DarkC
The previous example of "What goes up must come down",
never said "what comes up must come down".

remember? Not too difficult to do. When you apply it to astrophysics, for example, it becomes illogical.
Explain to me how taking proverbs out of context is impossible.

i never said it was. wow is this really your method of discussion? dodge, evade, misrepresent....LIE? you and sorgo were made for eachother. i love when you yappers gang up and feel like that somehow makes you right.

Originally posted by DarkC
If I'm a 'tireless rebutter', you're a 'blustering chatterbox', my shortsighted friend.

yeah sure, why not. you are also a 'tiny yapper'

Originally posted by Schecter
hmmm, perhaps my typo confused you. my appologies.
you must have thought i was calling you a holy man. funny how you didnt question it.

so the correction:

hollow victory rhetoric

You should watch some of those words you're using, might be a bit too big for you.


You lost, so I figure I would've played around with my victory a bit.

You can keep on dragging it, but the fact is you lost. Sorry, pal.

Originally posted by Sorgo X
You should watch some of those words you're using, might be a bit too big for you.


You lost, so I figure I would've played around with my victory a bit.

You can keep on dragging it, but the fact is you lost. Sorry, pal.

lol "you lost" "i won" "yap yap yap"

Holy shit, David turned into Sorgo Jr.

perhaps sorgo is david jr.

Originally posted by Schecter
empty posturing and yapping
i guess you just dont understand.
more empty posturing and yapping
Not like you haven't been doing the same, my shortsighted friend.

It seems that every post when you're trying to make a point, you end up acting like a hypocrite. I tell it like it is.

You counter with the same excuses, over and over again. How original.

You don't know what you're talking about.

When something is said, it is either IN context or it is OUT of context. There is no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Like saying you either get it completely or you don't. It's not an opinionated issue.

I've explained how proverbs can be taken out of context already. Have you bothered to read my example before?
It's not the issue here. Don't forget the main issue. You stated that Sorgo X OBJECTIVELY needs to experience a buzzkill because he's been dishing it out, which is quite simply, WRONG. I shouldn't need to remind you this.

No. I was showing you that you verifyed saying that you thought that someone deserving something because they've been dishing it out follows a logical train of thought.

Again, keep up.

In your own words:

Really, Schecter. If I'm 'yapping', then you're gushing it out like a wannabee hardass on overdrive. Your posts are 40% bluster.

I don't care if you're a Buddhist or not. The definition of Karma remains the same, whether complex or simple.
You are dragging it off topic again.

I'm showing you what each of them refers to and how you referred to them incorrectly. Those do not apply to "Person A should be put down because he's been putting down many other persons" and trying to see it as clear logic.

I wasn't trying to explain what each of them meant extensively with all their origins. It's you who jump in and try to flash your knowledge as though it actually mattered to the debate, Schecter. Congratulations, you can search on Wikipedia!

No, you have it wrong. I didn't imply, I asked. Clearly and without a doubt to make sure what you were saying.

Read page three of this thread.
Did I not verify clearly what you were saying before I got into it?
Did you not clearly say that yes, you did mean what I thought you said?

Good, that's what I thought.
Go dine on your own words.

Funny how you accuse me of 'posturing and yapping' now. Give me a break, you raging hypocrite.
It's worse than watching a sugar-high Jimmy Fallon dance with a half litre of Pepsi.

I say it because it's relevant. Logic isn't subjective, it's objective. You didn't simply BELIEVE that he deserves a buzzcut, you stated as though it were, plain, simple FACT. This is clearly a false use of logic.

Precisely, Schecter.

Beats the hell out of me why you're doing it considerably more often than I am. But hypocrisy seems to be as much a part of you as blood is, so I guess I really shouldn't be so baffled.

Ah, more bluster. Stick to the topic, Schecter. I shouldn't need to remind you that often.

And the last time I watched a Star Wars movie was a year ago, thanks.

You're pulling more nonsense out of your ass, Schecter.

You're basically accusing me of trying to act like I'm 'above it all'? Utter nonsense and a desperate attempt at defaming me. No, that isn't the case. Strop trying to judge me, you barely even know me.
Notice how I very rarely trashtalk unless I know I've explained my arguments before?

You, on the other hand, 'yak' away like an ill tempered puppy no matter what. Not very classy.

And no, I'm not gay.

Wrong again. See above.

You're accusing others of being hypocritical yappers? I swear, if irony had taste, King Louis XIV would have been tripping over his slippers to get a taste of this. You're actually the one doing the majority of it, you realise?

I rarely 'yap' when I debate, Schecter, not unless the idiot who I'm debating with spews out an obscene load of unnecessary trash talk first. And even then I refrain.

I believe I said:

"They are proverbs/cliches. NOT logic."

I didn't say "They are proverbs/cliches, which are NOT logic."
I didn't say "They are proverbs/cliches, and so because of that are NOT logic."

Don't try and twist my words, Schecter.

I implied that they were false logic, BECAUSE they were OUT of context. Not because they were proverbs itself.

Are we clear? Refrain from twisting another's words now? Good.

It's general, indeed, but it doesn't pertain to here. Even proverbs have certain circumstances that are met before actually referring to him. It's like cutting trees down and saying that "Variety is the spice of life". THAT's how proverbs get out of context, Schecter, and that's exactly what you did. How? Read above replies.

'Raping the fun'?

Other people are ignorant enough and reply to his so called 'troll' thread, intended for a bit of serious and thoughtful discussion, in a stupid and immature matter.
And you accuse HIM of baiting.
Once again, example of the great Schecter's 'logic'.

Look at the first two pages of the "Pseudo Badness" thread, as an example.

No, Schecter. Look at the first page of this thread.
He wasn't baiting. At ALL.
When people were expressing their advice, advice without baiting HIM, he was all cool and good.

It's when the "Cry me a river" comment was posted that things started to turn sour, remember?

That's a subjective notion, Schecter. Don't pretend that it isn't irrefutable logic. I'm sure many people would agree with you, but it is not LOGICAL. Subjective is not logic.

Neither did I.

However, you simply don't seem to get why it isn't a logical notion for him to get a 'taste of his own medicine'. It amazes me why it's such a difficult concept to understand with you.

Quite funny to see the juxtaposition of your two replies here. My response using your words:

Originally posted by Schecter
perhaps sorgo is david jr.

shock I didn't think of that. shock

I rarely do that. In my opinion, posting just an emoticon is a waste of a post. I do use them, however.

I've explained it already.

The karma one I'll give to you because it's an obscenely large concept and it's hard for 'rebuttal/reward' to be NOT included.



"One good turn deserves another" is a reference to 'repayment'. "Getting his own medicine" refers to something bad being done and something being done for vengeance. You used it incorrectly. There was nothing done BY Sorgo X initially, nothing to avenge.

Disagree? Provide an explanation rather than declaring outright that it's 'wrong'.

Dodge? You've been dodging my MAIN point this entire time. Hypocrisy.
Evade? Same thing as dodging. More hypocrisy.
Misrepresent? You've been twisting my words. Even more hypocrisy.
Lie? I don't think you've lied. Show me where I openly LIED.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Hahahahaha, you accuse me and Sorgo of being yappers (when you do so at least ten times more than us) and gang up (there's only two of us against you, and there's at least a dozen who dislike him) and feel that it makes it right (when he's been on the recieving side of the disdain and spitting).

Very rich, Schecter.

its amazing how your yapping text multiplies. its like a bacterial colony of nonesense

Originally posted by Tattoo
shock I didn't think of that. shock
Nah....I'm pure Asian.
Originally posted by Schecter
its amazing how your yapping text multiplies. its like a bacterial colony of nonesense
Trust me, Schecter, the same can REALLY be said about you.


I wouldn't be lecturing others on it.

how intelligent and witty: "no you!" dur

thumbsupdur

Originally posted by Schecter
how intelligent and witty: "no you!" dur
Witty/intelligent or not, it's really still truth.


I know I do it too and I admit it, but not nearly to the extent to which you go to.

lets trim the fat on your ranting nonesense and get to your "point"

Originally posted by DarkC
I've explained how proverbs can be taken out of context already. Have you bothered to read my example before?
It's not the issue here. Don't forget the main issue. You stated that Sorgo X OBJECTIVELY needs to experience a buzzkill because he's been dishing it out, which is quite simply, WRONG. I shouldn't need to remind you this.

you never proved it to be out of context. you just keep saying it is, in your lengthy diatribes, but have no explanation as to why it is out of context.

your logic: "if its possible to take it out of context, therefore it IS out of context by default...because i said so."

and im supposed to address the rest of your garbled yapping?

All of this over a wristwatch ...

Originally posted by Schecter
lets trim the fat on your ranting nonesense and get to your "point"



you never proved it to be out of context. you just keep saying it is, in your lengthy diatribes, but have no explanation as to why it is out of context.

your logic: "if its possible to take it out of context, therefore it IS out of context by default...because i said so."

and im supposed to address the rest of your garbled yapping?
Correct, the fact that it's possible doesn't mean that it IS.
I completely agree.

Show me above where I said my reasoning was simply because "Hey, it's possible, therefore it should be!"

I have no explanation at hand? Read above.
If you disagree, hey, feel free to explain why. Don't just leave it at 'no, you're wrong', however.

Don't forget. You're still ignoring what I said originally, the main issue. See:

You haven't addressed that directly. That's the point I've been trying to make originally but you're accusing me of evading (when actually, you've failed to answer that question in the first place).

Originally posted by DarkC
Correct, the fact that it's possible doesn't mean that it IS.
I completely agree.

then the "WRONG" and "lose" are truly hollow. glad we agree.

Originally posted by DarkC
Show me above where I said my reasoning was simply because "Hey, it's possible, therefore it should be!"

the fact that you used it as proof that you somehow "won". its clearly implied.

Originally posted by DarkC
I have no explanation at hand? Read above.
If you disagree, hey, feel free to explain why. Don't just leave it at 'no, you're wrong', however.

when exactly did i do/say that, mr. kettle?

Originally posted by DarkC
Don't forget. You're still ignoring what I said originally, the main issue. See:

You haven't addressed that directly. That's the point I've been trying to make originally but you're accusing me of evading (when actually, you've failed to answer that question in the first place).

i dont ignore. i already addressed this. many times, in fact. the lack of "imho" does not automatically imply objectivity. i stated over and over that no logic, no matter how universal, is ever truly subjective. try reading and comprehending instead of thinking "how can i fill this page up with more diatribe and win"

Originally posted by Schecter
the fact that you used it as proof that you somehow "won". its clearly implied.
That's not proof, Schecter.

Remember, you were accusing me of using at an example originally? It looked like you were ridiculing BOTH my use of it, AND its possibillity of occurence.
I misinterpreted.
Then you misinterpreted as well.

What a party.

Read the bottom half of page four, Schecter.

It isn't hard to tell. Many times you say something or deny something that I said without explaining it and assuming that it's just fact and final. No questions asked. For example:

See what I mean?

Yes, I know about the "IMHO" excuse. Normally I'd buy it, but for one little anomaly:

Remember, I VERIFIED what you were saying before I said you were wrong for it. Go back and read.
You never did address it in depth or explain why you thought it was objective.

A natural train of logic isn't subjective at all, period.

If you did know me better, I'm a writer. So I don't TRY and fill up a page. I tend to write a lot, Schecter, but I don't purposely do it as a tactic.

in response to you're putting the word 'objective' in my mouth

Originally posted by Schecter
proverbs which are based in logic/philosophy/deductive reasoning. none of which is purely objective (as in no logic/philosophy/deductive reasoning of any kind). wow, you really want to argue that to death?

*ignored* so i was forced to state again:

Originally posted by Schecter
more semantics gaming.

fine, ill retract my previous statement, publically. in its place:

"IMHO, *insert previous statement*"

*ignored* repeat

Originally posted by Schecter
i explained my logic in a series of proverbs. thats reality. go back and read. never did i say that logic was absolute.

*ignored* repeat

:edit: *ignored* again, i see

Originally posted by Secretus
All of this over a wristwatch ...

Sign of the Apocalypse #193,243

i also find it funny how you intentionally deleted a portion of your quote of me since it clearly proved you wrong in me supposedly not mentioning about logic being subjective.



Originally posted by DarkC
A natural train of logic isn't subjective at all, period

define "natural". i doubt beyond eating/sleeping/shitting/and sex you have an argument there. all deductive reasoning is subjective. (period! dur )

Originally posted by Schecter
lol "you lost" "i won" "yap yap yap"

Escapism always works.


Does that arrogance of yours hurt, Schecter? Or is the hypocrisy more painful?

Originally posted by Tattoo
Holy shit, David turned into Sorgo Jr.

What a surprising post.

Don't you guys have anything better to do with your lives than make pages of arguments over a wristwatch?

Originally posted by Barker
Don't you guys have anything better to do with your lives than make pages of arguments over a wristwatch?
It's not over a wristwatch.

Over the internet, then.

you actually webstered "nature" and tried to pass off one definition as absolute. do you have any idea how hard you failed there?

:edit:

Originally posted by DarkC


DEDUCTIVE reasoning? Absolutely not.

Deductive reasoning takes previously known FACTS(not subjective) and use it to necessitate a conclusion based on these facts.
It is a logical process, Schecter. It isn't subjective at all.

You must have it confused with ABDUCTIVE reasoning.

deductive reasoning is based on information/evidence which may or may not be fact or even reasonable by general standards. you really need to take your pills.


you fail, and your little dog too.

*flies off on broomstick cackling*

That was one long ass set of responses O.o

Originally posted by Tattoo
Holy shit, David turned into Sorgo Jr.

Ha Ha It really is the wristwatch from hell. Oh Noess It's teh devils!

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s167/Secretus74/images.jpg





















http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s167/Secretus74/thb756184d.jpg

hysterical

Roland, call the cops. Sorgo's been robbed!

Originally posted by Secretus
Roland, call the cops. Sorgo's been robbed!

Nah. haermm

Originally posted by Barker
Too bad it wasn't your mouse arm. haermm

Hahahahahaha!

Hehehehehe...

Okay, someone's gonna have to explain that one to me...

Ya i was rather confused on that to

It's for Sorgo! We'll have to call the police to investigate the loss of pride and dignity .. let me try 911. They just referred me to the FBI ..











http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s167/Secretus74/thfbi.jpg

For some strange reason, they just don't care either.

violin

Originally posted by Schecter
you actually webstered "nature" and tried to pass off one definition as absolute. do you have any idea how hard you failed there?
Explain to me how I attempted to pass off one definition as absolute.

Once again, you're grasping at thin air, Schecter.
Remember earlier when I said that I deleted things that wasn't really necessary or relevant to this discussion? This is one of these cases.

Look closely at the definition. It's a copy/pasted definition, I deleted most things, such as links to other pronounciations, origins, etc.
Notice how I very clearly left the "10.)" and the "..." above it ALONE? It's number ten on the list. I'm not acting like it's the first and most easily recognized definition.


Your point is negated.
There is absolutely no reasoning why you can assume that I was attempting to pass off a single definition as absolute. You don't have a case at all.

Deleting the rest doesn't imply anything.

Half right.

Deductive reasoning is based on information that is PURELY fact and MUST be reasonable in order to reach a NON-FALSE conclusion.
If and only if, the premises (the facts behind the deductive reasoning) are TRUE FACT, then the end conclusion is also surmised to be true fact AS WELL.
For example:

Premises:
1-All humans classify as living organisms.
2-Person A is a human.

Non-False Conclusion:
Therefore, Person A classifies as a living organism.

You don't take an unaccepted fact or ambiguity, plug it in, and hope that your conclusion at the end will be correct, Schecter.
That's not how it works out correctly.

So immature, you can't even refrain from trashtalking for a single post.

It's astounding how pathetic it turns out to be.

Can only solve this by dueling to the death with pocket watches with bladeds cords Do so now

Poopies.

Originally posted by DarkC
Explain to me how I attempted to pass off one definition as absolute.

Once again, you're grasping at thin air, Schecter.
Remember earlier when I said that I deleted things that wasn't really necessary or relevant to this discussion? This is one of these cases.

Look closely at the definition. It's a copy/pasted definition, I deleted most things, such as links to other pronounciations, origins, etc.
Notice how I very clearly left the "10.)" and the "..." above it ALONE? It's number ten on the list. I'm not acting like it's the first and most easily recognized definition.


Your point is negated.
There is absolutely no reasoning why you can assume that I was attempting to pass off a single definition as absolute. You don't have a case at all.

Deleting the rest doesn't imply anything.

Half right.

Deductive reasoning is based on information that is PURELY fact and MUST be reasonable in order to reach a NON-FALSE conclusion.
If and only if, the premises (the facts behind the deductive reasoning) are TRUE FACT, then the end conclusion is also surmised to be true fact AS WELL.
For example:

Premises:
1-All humans classify as living organisms.
2-Person A is a human.

Non-False Conclusion:
Therefore, Person A classifies as a living organism.

You don't take an unaccepted fact or ambiguity, plug it in, and hope that your conclusion at the end will be correct, Schecter.
That's not how it works out correctly.

So immature, you can't even refrain from trashtalking for a single post.

It's astounding how pathetic it turns out to be.

F

Originally posted by BackFire
Poopies.

A++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I'm cumming.

lick it up






slowly

u

*tramatized* faint

Originally posted by RaventheOnly
*turned on* faint

Gay.

hysterical

Originally posted by Barker
Don't you guys have anything better to do with your lives than make pages of arguments over a wristwatch?

Please; Don't criticize this thread when you sit there and mumble on about pokemon in leetspeak and how cool it is to floss signatures of bread loafs.


Barker PUHLEASE!

131


^ I'm starting to take an unnatural liking to that emoticon.

pokemon > wristwatch.

Pass it on.

A 140 dollar watch made him bleed? I hope he never get's a car, that would make a real mess