EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Sun Sep 21, 2014 2:07 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 164 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 11  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 10:22 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20537
Location: Southeastern US
hunter88 wrote:
Quote:
If there were no other posts in between, maybe you would have a point, but there were many posts in the interim.


sianblooz said

Quote:
If Donnie had a brain he's take it out and play with it. He doesn't seem to notice that I disagree with Watson.


How can a person disagree with Watson, and say "he doesn't seem to notice that I disagreed with Watson, without saying something about Watson.

Sianblooz can disagree with Watson and yet not say anything about Watson. But once sianblooz says Donnie didn't notice I disagreed with Watson, that shows sianblooz's comments were about Watson.


If you take the comment in the context of this statement by Donnie .. I stated that you and WATSON would use the trophy hunt stuff to castigate all hunters. the statement made would then be in disagreement with Watson in this case. The original statement does not have to be in reference to Watson in order to use it to indicate a disagreement with Watson later when such a statement is made. The point about speaking of Watson was prior to this new quote, thus any discussion after the statement does not refute the statement retroactively.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 10:35 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 1:41 pm
Posts: 6190
sianblooz wrote on page 4

Quote:
Donnie you're a lying sack of poo. I'd say shit but I might get my hand spanked for telling the truth about you. You have never seen me write one word about Watson.


This is where sianblooz claims to have never said anything about Watson.

Yet sianblooz said

Quote:
If Donnie had a brain he's take it out and play with it. He doesn't seem to notice that I disagree with Watson.


The only place in this thread where sianblooz could have disagreed with Watson is on page one, where the discussion was about trophy hunters.

1. Sianblooz claims to have never written one word about Watson.

2. Sianblooz claims Donnie doesn't notice that sianblooz disagrees with Watson.

3. The only place where sianblooz and Watson disagree is on trophy hunters, which is at the start of the thread. So there can be no misunderstanding what the disagreement is about. Or the fact that sianblooz did in fact write one word about Watson. Just saying he doesn't notice that I disagree with Watson is in fact writing one word about Watson.

You know I'm just keeping this up because I like putting sianblooz's quotes up there all the time. :wink:

_________________
I don't know what your problem is but I bet its hard to pronounce.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 11:08 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 4:49 pm
Posts: 6178
Location: Dame Glooy'd Sneefrugs
Heh.. this is better than watching a tennis match. :shock:

_________________
I know God will not give me anything I can't handle. I just wish he didn't trust me so much. - Mother Theresa Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 12:31 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 3:26 pm
Posts: 500
Origam wrote:
Heh.. this is better than watching a tennis match. :shock:


I was going to say its worse than a tennis match. But its funnier. I'll give it that.

Score is Wayne - Match, Set and Game. 8)

Note to Wayne - how would you feel about occasionally throwing a game so these fools could win once in a while?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 7:58 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20537
Location: Southeastern US
hunter88 wrote:
sianblooz wrote on page 4

Quote:
Donnie you're a lying sack of poo. I'd say shit but I might get my hand spanked for telling the truth about you. You have never seen me write one word about Watson.


This is where sianblooz claims to have never said anything about Watson.

Yet sianblooz said

Quote:
If Donnie had a brain he's take it out and play with it. He doesn't seem to notice that I disagree with Watson.


The only place in this thread where sianblooz could have disagreed with Watson is on page one, where the discussion was about trophy hunters.

1. Sianblooz claims to have never written one word about Watson.

2. Sianblooz claims Donnie doesn't notice that sianblooz disagrees with Watson.

3. The only place where sianblooz and Watson disagree is on trophy hunters, which is at the start of the thread. So there can be no misunderstanding what the disagreement is about. Or the fact that sianblooz did in fact write one word about Watson. Just saying he doesn't notice that I disagree with Watson is in fact writing one word about Watson.

You know I'm just keeping this up because I like putting sianblooz's quotes up there all the time. :wink:


This does not follow the context of the thread.

If G makes a statement about W which mistates that original statement.

J corrects the oversight to G on the original statement with an explanation.

S makes a statement to G agreeing with the observation of the explanation.

At this point the statement is not about W but J, correct?

D now makes a statement about S and claims S views W as a hero and would use the original statement similarly.

S then points out the original statement by W does not agree with the original statement by S thus showing disagreement between the two.

There is no logical way to remove the added questions, statements, and comparisons to "prove" the original statement was made about W instead of J. It is an assumption stated as fact and is not possible to prove unless one wishes to believe one way or the other for other reasons.

The only reason I keep responding is to show the flaws in the logic being presented as this discussion is meaningless otherwise. Neither Donnie or Wijim would believe anything Sainblooz says whether it is the truth or not, so there is no reason to waste time there. However, those on the edges may still be able to see clearly enough to understand the errors of assuming beliefs are facts especially when those beliefs are rushed.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Last edited by Wayne Stollings on Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:39 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 7957
Location: Cape Breton Npva Scotia
Wayne Stollings wrote:
hunter88 wrote:
sianblooz wrote on page 4

Quote:
Donnie you're a lying sack of poo. I'd say shit but I might get my hand spanked for telling the truth about you. You have never seen me write one word about Watson.


This is where sianblooz claims to have never said anything about Watson.

Yet sianblooz said

Quote:
If Donnie had a brain he's take it out and play with it. He doesn't seem to notice that I disagree with Watson.


The only place in this thread where sianblooz could have disagreed with Watson is on page one, where the discussion was about trophy hunters.

1. Sianblooz claims to have never written one word about Watson.

2. Sianblooz claims Donnie doesn't notice that sianblooz disagrees with Watson.

3. The only place where sianblooz and Watson disagree is on trophy hunters, which is at the start of the thread. So there can be no misunderstanding what the disagreement is about. Or the fact that sianblooz did in fact write one word about Watson. Just saying he doesn't notice that I disagree with Watson is in fact writing one word about Watson.

You know I'm just keeping this up because I like putting sianblooz's quotes up there all the time. :wink:


This does not follow the context of the thread.

If G makes a statement about W which mistates that orignal statement.

J corrects the oversight to G on the original statement with an explanation.

S makes a statement to G agreeing with the observation of the explanation.

At this point the statement is not about W but J, correct?

D now makes a statement about S and claims S views W as a hero and would use the orignal statement similarly.

S then points out the orignal statement by W does not agree with the orignal statement by S thus showing disagreement between the two.

There is no logical way to remove the added questions, statements, and comparisons to "prove" the original statement was made about W instead of J. It is an assumption stated as fact and is not possible to prove unless one wishes to believe one way or the other for other reasons.

The only reason I keep responding is to show the flaws in the logic being presented as this discussion is meaningless otherwise. Neither Donnie or Wijim would believe anything Sainblooz says whether it is the truth or not, so there is no reason to waste time there. However, those on the edges may still be able to see clearly enough to understand the errors of assuming beliefs are facts especially when those beliefs are rushed.



Or one could accept your periferal vision as legitmet but that would be a strertch Wayne. Sianblooz was refererencing trophy hun ting as presented by Watson despite your smoke & mirrors nonsense . Get over yourself.

_________________
I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.

Life is a time capsule we strive to fill with precious memories.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:45 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:45 pm
Posts: 10701
Location: S. Fla
hunter88 wrote:
Quote:
Since you say Watson did not separate the trophy hunting from meat hunting, but Wijim did, would the statement "He has a point but trophy hunting is not the same as hunting for food." not apply more to Wijim's post than Watson's?


No because the statement "He has a point but trophy hunting is not the same as hunting for food." is in disagreement with Watson and later sianblooz tells us

Quote:
If Donnie had a brain he's take it out and play with it. He doesn't seem to notice that I disagree with Watson.


It's hard not to be talking about someone when you say Donnie didn't even notice I disagreed with Watson. This would prove the statement "He has a point but trophy hunting is not the same as hunting for food." is about Watson and not wijim. :lol:



Good summation. I was at first inclined to think Sianblooz was commenting on Watson's post, but when s/he later stated s/he disagreed w/Watson, looks like Sianblooz was responding to wijim.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:47 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:45 pm
Posts: 10701
Location: S. Fla
Ok now I'm confused. Forget my post I need to re-read this again.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:47 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20537
Location: Southeastern US
Donnie Mac Leod wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
hunter88 wrote:
sianblooz wrote on page 4

Quote:
Donnie you're a lying sack of poo. I'd say shit but I might get my hand spanked for telling the truth about you. You have never seen me write one word about Watson.


This is where sianblooz claims to have never said anything about Watson.

Yet sianblooz said

Quote:
If Donnie had a brain he's take it out and play with it. He doesn't seem to notice that I disagree with Watson.


The only place in this thread where sianblooz could have disagreed with Watson is on page one, where the discussion was about trophy hunters.

1. Sianblooz claims to have never written one word about Watson.

2. Sianblooz claims Donnie doesn't notice that sianblooz disagrees with Watson.

3. The only place where sianblooz and Watson disagree is on trophy hunters, which is at the start of the thread. So there can be no misunderstanding what the disagreement is about. Or the fact that sianblooz did in fact write one word about Watson. Just saying he doesn't notice that I disagree with Watson is in fact writing one word about Watson.

You know I'm just keeping this up because I like putting sianblooz's quotes up there all the time. :wink:


This does not follow the context of the thread.

If G makes a statement about W which mistates that original statement.

J corrects the oversight to G on the original statement with an explanation.

S makes a statement to G agreeing with the observation of the explanation.

At this point the statement is not about W but J, correct?

D now makes a statement about S and claims S views W as a hero and would use the original statement similarly.

S then points out the original statement by W does not agree with the original statement by S thus showing disagreement between the two.

There is no logical way to remove the added questions, statements, and comparisons to "prove" the original statement was made about W instead of J. It is an assumption stated as fact and is not possible to prove unless one wishes to believe one way or the other for other reasons.

The only reason I keep responding is to show the flaws in the logic being presented as this discussion is meaningless otherwise. Neither Donnie or Wijim would believe anything Sainblooz says whether it is the truth or not, so there is no reason to waste time there. However, those on the edges may still be able to see clearly enough to understand the errors of assuming beliefs are facts especially when those beliefs are rushed.



Or one could accept your periferal vision as legitmet but that would be a strertch Wayne. Sianblooz was refererencing trophy hun ting as presented by Watson despite your smoke & mirrors nonsense . Get over yourself.


That is your OPINION which you present as fact. Only Sianblooz knows for sure and for the rest of us there is a 50/50 chance of getting it right. Unless you have some magical powers you cannot prove your assumptions to any reasonable level of proof. That leaves you with a credibility problem, IMO. You may want to get over it yourself in the process. :wink:

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:49 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:45 pm
Posts: 10701
Location: S. Fla
Ok I think I got it. Sianblooz's "he" was with respect to Watson's statement, not wijim's.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:49 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:34 am
Posts: 6321
Location: Texas
sianblooz wrote:
Unless Donnie or Archer can come up with some proof of their lies, how about we talk about the issue at hand?


If you could point out my lie, then I would gladly provide your proof. So tell me, WHERE DID I LIE ABOUT YOU?

_________________
"Yes like I said it all boils down to morals. What you think is right doesn't make a person wrong because they think different ;)" X-Black


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:58 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:45 pm
Posts: 10701
Location: S. Fla
Sianblooz who the hell were you responding to Watson or wijim??? I'm back to being confused again after Wayne's W, G, S, D, J post. :?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 9:00 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 1:41 pm
Posts: 6190
sianblooz wrote

Quote:
I was going to say its worse than a tennis match. But its funnier. I'll give it that.

Score is Wayne - Match, Set and Game.

Note to Wayne - how would you feel about occasionally throwing a game so these fools could win once in a while?


I knew I'd get this one right. :lol:

_________________
I don't know what your problem is but I bet its hard to pronounce.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 9:02 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20537
Location: Southeastern US
Hunter,

If you look at the thread in this fashion, without the historical drama.

Bush makes a statement about radical Muslims.

In a discussion on politics X brings up this statement but does not make the clear reference to "radicals".

Y then points out the error and explains there are good and bad in that religion.

Z then agrees with the statement and explanation of Y on radicals, not of the original statement.

ZA then attacks Z stating they support Bush and agree with the statement on radical Muslims.

Z states they have never referenced Bush at all, which would be the case.

Z then points out their first statement disagreed with Bush's statement and thus disproves the claim, which is also the case and which does not refute the claim made prior that they had not referenced Bush because the reference did not happen until after the statement and was made toward a separate claim.

This is just a possible as any other claim which can be made concerning the references based upon personal belief. The problem is that personal beliefs do not make a proof where other just as likely explanations also apply.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 9:05 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 1:41 pm
Posts: 6190
Grace wrote

Quote:
Sianblooz who the hell were you responding to Watson or wijim??? I'm back to being confused again after Wayne's W, G, S, D, J post.


See this was smoke and mirrors by Wayne to try and cover the fact he is wrong. W could stand for Watson or wijim, so saying S is talking about W doesn't say anything. W could even be Wayne, which makes it even more confusing. :wink:

The confession is there for all to see.

Quote:
You have never seen me write one word about Watson.


Quote:
If Donnie had a brain he's take it out and play with it. He doesn't seem to notice that I disagree with Watson.


But it seems only a DNA test will make some folks happy. :lol:

_________________
I don't know what your problem is but I bet its hard to pronounce.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 164 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 11  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group