http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.
are global warming skeptics really just cranks?
i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .
HS,
That you deny the evidence before your eyes
Again, good self-diagnosis!
You do deny the evidence before your eyes- the evidence that you and your cheerleading captain do not debate, but rather use fallacies as pointed out in my earlier post.
Congratulations! The first step is admitting the problem!
BA- Now you can get help.
PS- read up on argumentation theory and logical fallacies
http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.
are global warming skeptics really just cranks?
i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .
HS/Abbadon,
You can manufacture whatever imaginary reality you wish.
This is cyberspace.
You can accuse me of just exiting the JWs, although that is a lie.
Gyles can use speech that would get others on JWD banned, which is probably one of his goals.
I do not lie, and have not done so.
I am not 'debating". rather, pointing out what the style of "debate" used by Abaddon amounts to.
BA- Some people can't handle, and won't learn from criticism.
PS- feel free to manufacture more imaginary reality- it shows how much you abhore facts.
http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.
are global warming skeptics really just cranks?
i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .
http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.
are global warming skeptics really just cranks?
i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .
LT,
I always enjoy your reasoned, mature approach to discussions on JWD. I am simply calling Gyles on the carpet based on his immature style, as pointed out numerous times in this thread.
BA:Gyles (Abaddon) can be debated. It just takes a reasonable starting position, a comprehensive understanding of the facts and the ability to present them in a non-ambiguous manner. If you lack any of these then he'll have your guts for garters. If you can present a well-reasoned perspective he's more than reasonable in return.
Just my 2p, from a guy who regularly engages him.
I have pointed out where I (and many others) feel it is useless, just a waste of time. What passes as debate is really just baiting the argument, then assailing the sources. I have seen absolutely no evidence to the contrary.
I've got no beef with Abaddon or his cheerleaders, other than that what he's up to isn't debate.
That's just my 2p, from a guy who regularly observes his use of fallacies.
BA- Wishing you the best, LT!
http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.
are global warming skeptics really just cranks?
i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .
HS,
You clearly suffer from a lack of reading comprehension.
Too bad you can't face the facts. Your one track mind keeps repeating untruths such as "I had my nose bloodied" or some such nonsense that has already been rebutted.
I'm not surprised, as your cheerleading coach Abaddon does likewise.
BA- doesn't "debate" with children.
PS- As you were- playing with blocks and teddy bears
what qualifies as successful?
a huge bank account, at work, health, family, friends, education?.
abr.
I always try to remember the old adage that he who is rich is the one who needs the least.
Or, as another fellow put it:
Success: To laugh often and much, to win the respect of intelligent people and the affection of children, to earn the appreciation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends, to appreciate beauty, to find the best in others, to leave the world a bit better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch, or a redeemed social condition; to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived. This is to have succeeded! ~Ralph Waldo Emerson
BA- Strives for success
i used to be here a real lot.
now i make about 15 posts , if that,.
per day and read a few other threads that interest me.
I check it on occasion. Some months more than others. When the weather isn't dreary, I'll be outdoors rather than on my butt in front of a computer display.
if you had your chance who would you want to meet face to face, talk to them, spend some time picking their brain, have a dinner with, get to know better?.
i have many but want to hold off for now!!!.
abr.
Everyone- no exclusions.
http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.
are global warming skeptics really just cranks?
i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .
Abaddon,
Glad to see you had a safe trip to school today on the short bus.
I've fairly decent qualifications in science with a broad base. It means I can understand scientific arguments and also I understand the importance of the scientific method.
I have qualifications as well. Here is the difference between yours and mine- I have decades of real world experience, you don’t. As they say, "Those who are qualified, do, those who can’t, teach."
You truly are a mental onanist, Abaddon. You are always making the assumption that you alone are schooled in argumentation theory and logical fallacies. Here’s the point, obtuse one: You are supposed to avoid the use of them, not pepper your entire childish "rebuttal" with ad hominems, strawmen, etc.
This thread, just like all others you’ve posted your propaganda on, demonstrates clearly that you have no capacity to make other than a shallow "argument" based on your narcissistic belief that you are always right.
Your "debate" techniques, as well as responses on this thread and every other always follow the same M.O:
-bait the others to post citations
-use ad hominem attacks on the sources of those citations
-conclude that this "guilt by association" fallacy nullifies the claim of the original citation.
-oh, and "science" as used by you translates to "science that I can use to bolster my preconceived conclusion"
In a nutshell, "my opinion is always right, my sources are better than your sources, my citations are better than your citations, etc. It’s pathological and pathetic.
What you fail to realize is the same attacks could be made on your (rarely posted) pet sources and citations.
I am not the only one who notices how your claims of education are betrayed by your arrogant, narcissistic style of "debate". My observation, as well as many PMs to the same effect, is that you assume you are right because many will not "debate" you, having observed your child like style of "debate". I am not the only one who doesn’t "debate" with children. Calling someone a "troll", haughtily assuming you are "more qualified", etc, speaks volumes.
I imagine you need a special walking aid to hold your head up lest you fall over, or that you must wear a helmet at all times lest a sharp object pricks your skull and releases all that hot air.
BA- Doesn’t "debate" with children.
PS- Grow up. You opinion is just that, an opinion, not a fact.
hello chumz on the board.
nothing really to do with jwism but who prefers the american 'bourbon' type such as 'wild turkey', 'jim beam' etc or who prefers a fine single malt scotch such as 'glenfiddich' or 'glenmorangie'?
i am not trying to stir up nationalism with this question but am just genuinely curious.. lfcv.
U callin me a wiskee drinker...
I'm not as drunk as u think i am...
i don't go to meetings,
only alcoholics go to meetings....
