Sayonara

This is the thing, isn't it? I'm still waiting on a reason to use capital punishment from the pro~ crowd, as opposed to reasons why arguments against don't work.

The fact that a discussion should be conducted in public does not mean that all parts of it are open to suggestion (especially when experience should tell the contributor that it's not a good idea). Having said that I was a bit rude to Tesseract I suppose. Sorry Tesseract. Well quite, but recall that I have refuted your justifications and not yet seen any relevant counter points. Seconded. All hail agreeing on things. Kind of, but an ad hominem does follow a very specific structure (as I have already stated), and this occasion did not meet those criteria. Well, not really. He either did or he didn't attack you, and the evidence says that he didn't. Whether or not the comment was an a.h. depends on whether the comment meets the criteria for defining something as an a.h., and this one does not.

I read swanson's post as being a description of the music companies' behaviour rather than that of file sharers, so it's not really incorrect based on what you said. His point was that the consumer isn't being forced to hand over cash, because they can walk away from a sale. Although I do agree with the post itself.

Ideally, TTD ought to contain hidden answers to absolutely everything by the time you are done MrL.

It's called being publically accountable. Private Messages are for private matters, not any where there are only two participants. Don't "sigh" me. This discussion we are having now has nothing to do with the death penalty, but the dispute we are talking about (i.e. blike's comments about your position, and your reaction) certainly does. I have already told you what you need to do to end this. If you don't, I will. Trolls are not welcome here; hit-and-run trolls even less so.

Disproportionately in comparison to what? And what qualifies a historical date as being "global" or "major"? Because from what you've shown so far you seem to be considering only very recent events that involve the USA in some way.

Again, twisting someone else's words. You've got some nerve. It was quite clear what I said was that accusing people of logical fallacies without any attempt to back it up is an undesirable behaviour. You have been given every opportunity to do so, and have instead engaged in some bizarre argument against nothing. The result? What most people will take away from this thread is "Rakasha attacks people for no reason, and won't back it up". Now, to refer back to my previous post, perhaps you did not bother to read it all: I am running out of patience with you. Either comply with the above, or STFU.

You do realise I am talking about that site, and not you, right?

They don't have the same joining time at all. It's probably more to do with the fact that the i key is right next to the o key. Perhaps they both have fat fingers.

Good luck with that. [edit] Favourite bit of your graphic: "JFK shot by illuminati".

Oh for goodness' sake.

I like the way crazies try to convert other people to the idea they've just discovered by hijacking it and relating it in a completely bastardised way.

Only insofar as your brain necessarily plays host to your opinions, which you put into the public domain for the purposes of discussion. He was talking about him not understanding your apparently dichotomous positions, which has been stated again and again. How can you not "get" that? Meaningless in that context. I couldn't really care less what you want to do. The facts are that you made a false accusation against Blike of a personal attack on you, and now you are deflecting attention away from the fact that you really ought to be either (a) showing how it was an attack, or (b) apologising to Blike for throwing Latin around with reckless abandon, or © both. No, it is not true. It is a part of this discussion because it relates directly to your position on the topic at hand. It does not belong in PM between you and Blike and it certainly is not a topic for PMs between you and me. Don't try to tell me what I "wish" for. They aren't required to. No, most of your anwers were not "requests for clarification", they have been throat-stickingly obvious and blatant rewrites of extremely recent thread history. If it was a good suggestion it would have happened. So? This is beyond farce now. Either show how Blike attacked your person, or admit that he did not. I'm not interested in hearing any other interminable deflections, nor am I interested in arguing about vapid reinterpretations of the things I have said. Irony. Do you mind? I don't want him PMing me about this. Butt out.

Stickied so that more people will watch and learn.

I apologise, that was an ambiguous line. It should have read: - Originated somewhere else and started life off here: Highly unlikely. The second line should also have that additional bit for accuracy. I am quite sure life is probably common in the universe.

For the last ****ing time, homosexuals can and do reproduce.

No, that suggests a really poorly-devised study.

No, he said the two positions seemed dichotomous, which they do. Notice how I underline each word separately? That is because they show how your paraphrasing is wrong both individually and together. I did not accuse you of that. Do not put words in my mouth, especially in arguments that revolve around you saying you didn't put words in someone else's mouth. It's your wacky "reimagining" of the things people say that got us into this mess in the first place. I agree that this thread is suffering, yet still you keep it going by throwing in more fallacies to be countered. It's not that I want you to lose face, but that I don't want you to be able to slag off an admin in public and then weasle your way out of apologising to him, because that sets a bad precedent. As I said, it's your own fault for making those untenable accusations in the first place, so kindly stop trying to pin the role of provocateur on me. Now I have already shown twice why Blike did not make an attack on you, and you have done nothing except ignore the points and repeat the same accusations. Time to let it go. A very good question. Sepultallica: Nine posts in a row is user-hostile dude.

I call that natural selection. [edit] Assuming of course that it's not the "damage" that is passed on, but related adaptations.

And all I'm saying is that you are wrong; he did not make any claims about your view being abnormal. Look up "dichotomy". You accused an admin of a personal attack where none was made. If you can't back it up, that's your problem and your own fault - I'm not sneaking off to PM to save face for you.

I think what atm finds psychotic is not that yourdad thinks he is capable of killing, but that he is planning for it.

Which is why we have law - reason free from passion.

The lie would not be better, but easier. I believe the phrase comes from the idea that only the most deliberate liar can tell a lie without betraying it on their face, or averting their eyes. On reflection it's possibly too harsh a phrase in this particular instance.

If you think that identifying you to a member who had already twigged you were trolling is bias, then I think that has more to do with you than me. Frankly I can't think of any reason why someone who has been banned twice for trolling should not be identified to valued regular members. Due to the fact you have not been banned for a third time, you should know perfectly well that as long as you are not being a twat, you get no more 'flaming and trolling' from me than anybody else does. I don't think you have a leg to stand on complaining about my 'accusations of trolling'. Remember your penultimate post in the "trilobite & footprint" thread? Changing your username doesn't give you a different history. Stop harping on about how unjustly maligned you are and just get on with things, for god's sake.