The Wristwatch from HELL!

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
[B]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

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 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.

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.

which proves what? that im a smartass? congrats 👆

Again, keep up.

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

Empty posturing and yapping

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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".

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.

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

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

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 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.

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'.

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.

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

"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.

...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.

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.

its "buzzkill" as in "ruining someone's good vibes" as in "raping the fun", which he loves to do to other people.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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)

posturing, strutting, empty words. you really need to trim the useless fat off your posts.

Originally posted by Schecter
perhaps sorgo is david jr.

shock I didn't think of that. shock

have you ever thought of using smilies....i mean....ONLY smilies?

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

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'.

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.

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

Originally posted by Schecter
its amazing how your yapping text multiplies. its like a bacterial colony of nonesense

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

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?

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:

Originally posted by DarkC
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.

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.

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.

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

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:

i explained my logic in a series of proverbs. thats reality.

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"

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