Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Admit when you're wrong. Don't be pathetically dishonest. (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Admit when you're wrong. Don't be pathetically dishonest.
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's about it.

I'm really tired of people on this forum refusing to acknowledge when their arguments have been clearly refuted.

The most blatant kind is when you pretend you are still correct and keep repeating the refuted argument (without addressing the refutation).

But I'm also talking about when you are refuted and asked to acknowledge the error and you just go silent. Change the subject, or stop participating.

Man up. Own your mistakes. Don't be a coward. Endure the cognitive dissonance long enough to give yourself a shot at reducing it.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've sometimes failed to live up to this standard in the past. But it's all too common around here lately. It drags down the forum. I'm going to try hard not to hide from my own errors. I hope others will do the same.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When the stakes are as high as they are right now with so much on the line, it is understandable that many different information sources not only contradict each other but seek to discredit each other as well. It's less to do with "manning up" so much as there is no universal acceptance that things are "proven wrong."

For example, the LA Times and Reddit may claim that the debate on climate change is "over" and they will work to silence anyone who disagrees, but just because they say so doesn't make it so.

Also I would suggest you re - read this section of the ornery rules
quote:
If you post something and someone disagrees with your idea, their disagreement does not erase your original statement. There is no need to answer except to clarify or offer new material.


[ February 02, 2014, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There's a difference between disagreeing and being factually wrong. Wrong can be misunderstanding information, omission by accident or design, or willful misrepresentation due to an unwillingness to consider facts that contradict one's committed opinion.

It's only natural that everyone is subject to one or more of those ways of being wrong. I have been shown that I was wrong and have apologized or corrected the record many times.

Have you ever been wrong? Have you ever corrected the record or apologized? Is there anyone here you think has never been wrong?

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Of course you need to be aware of the biases and the agendas of your sources, but scifibum's observation is probably linked to much more blatant actions - for instance, redefining the word "adult" after the fact to mean "those 27 years of age and older, excluding those 26 years old and younger" (conveniently making one's prior statement not a complete howler, though bringing into question one's honesty, I suppose.)

DonaldD: Please see your email. -OrneryMod

[ February 04, 2014, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: OrneryMod ]

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Who is the Official and Undisputed Objective Judge of who is Right and Wrong?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Of course you need to be aware of the biases and the agendas of your sources, but scifibum's observation is probably linked to much more blatant actions - for instance, redefining the word "adult" after the fact to mean "those 27 years of age and older" (conveniently making one's prior statement not a complete howler, though bringing into question one's honesty, I suppose.)

I would level that accusation at the ACA'S authors, not people objecting to consistent economic policy.

[ February 02, 2014, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Exactly. I suppose it's handy to have an example right here on the thread where such actions are being discussed. Thanks, I guess.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So for healthcare which is nearly 20% of the economy by some estimates 26 year-olds can be considered minor dependents that should not be expected to provide their own healthcare, but for the minimum wage which effects less than 5% of the workforce 18 to 26 year-olds should be considered with the same weight given to adults who have dependents of their own? I think that is absurd.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca, here's a great opportunity to demonstrate that the ACA actually says that people 26 years old are not adults, since that is clearly a factual claim that nobody else can find a source for. Inferring that they aren't adults because the ACA allows people up to that age to remain covered on their family's insurance is quite a leap.

If you can't find such a source would you be willing to consider and admit that you were wrong?

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's not a leap. Providing for yourself and making your own way is a hallmark of adulthood.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, people who don't work are not adults? What about people who do work but take some form of disability? What about elderly who never worked because of illness? Are these people all children?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's not a semantics game about redefining people's entire existence, it's about identifying demographics that are being slanted different ways to justify different economic policies in different ways that are hypocritical.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's right. The question is why you either won't or can't see that is exactly what you are doing.

BTW - you and PSRT were both discussing Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers when you claimed he was "wrong". He was also clearly making a distinction between teenagers and adults.

However, you did not state that he was wrong in his use of definition, and for him to have been substantively wrong, he would have had to buy into your own newly minted definition. Since you only introduced your "adult" rationalization (based on your interpretation of the ACA) 6 hours later, and since nobody else in the worlds accepts your definition of adult when talking about demographics... wouldn't it have just been easier to admit your mistake?

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The topic of this post is excellent advice. I have some to contribute as well.

Don't look to anonymous posters on the internet to validate the worth of your opinions or persuasion skills.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thank you, scifibum. And I liked your last line, too D.W. I do still wonder what goes on in the minds of those who choose the behaviors you describe.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
It's not a semantics game about redefining people's entire existence, it's about identifying demographics that are being slanted different ways to justify different economic policies in different ways that are hypocritical.

Doh! It is *exactly* a semantics game you're playing. Here are some simple (and obvious) definitions of adult:
quote:
One who has attained maturity or legal age.

A person who by virtue of attaining a certain age, generally eighteen, is regarded in the eyes of the law as being able to manage his or her own affairs. -- This one is interesting, because an adult can choose to remain on his parents insurance, no? that adult can compensate his parents for the insurance coverage in some form or other that doesn't involve money.

There are plenty more but they all say the same thing in different words.

I have to believe that you know that, so considering the different ways I mentioned that a person can be wrong, let's see if we can find yours:

Misunderstanding -- No, because you insist on your definition and won't agree that you are using the word incorrectly.

Omission... -- Clearly not.

Willful misrepresentation -- This is clearly what you're doing, since you insist on a meaning for a word when it is obvious that it means no such thing.

If I look up the term "willful misrepresentation" in online dictionaries I find the following:

Willful -- intent on having one's own way; headstrong or obstinate

misrepresentation -- An assertion or manifestation by words or conduct that is not in accord with the facts, or the act of distorting something so it seems to mean something it was not intended to mean. Synonyms include lying, prevarication and distortion.

Note that this is not an attack on you, I am merely analyzing your argument and finding fault with it.

It would be as if you (generic you here) insisted that the sky is not blue because Democratic demographics are represented on maps these days with blue and liberals tend to be Democrats, so to admit that the sky is blue would be legitimizing liberals. You can even avoid giving the sky any color at all, or say it's a strange shade of green for example.

Would you like to take issue with my assertion that the sky is blue?

AI: please see your email. -OrneryMod

[ February 04, 2014, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: OrneryMod ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm ambivalent. I've felt the passionate desire to throw out accusations of dishonesty over claims that from my perspective are plainly false on their face by simple consideration of the words, e.g. that guns are "intended" to be used lethally while alcohol is not "intended" to be used in a dangerous manner. Or that a law defining marriage as the union of man and woman constitutes a "gay marriage ban." There is no single interpretation of the word "intent" or "marriage" that renders the statement true; you have to interpret the word one way for part of your argument and interpret it another way for the other part of your argument. But I've come to realize that such mental twerkings are the product of the company we keep; the mental gears of our clock get shaved a bit here and a bit there, and there's not necessarily any intentional dishonesty. Think of it like the Matrix.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let me be the first to say that I hope "mental twerkings" never catches on.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, do you think there is a common agreement on the meaning of the word "adult" as applied to humans? For instance, would you accept the definitions I offered or do I need to tell you whether each person pays for their own health insurance to qualify? [Smile]

DW, too late:
quote:
Join Louisiana’s Mental Twerking Association as they pry the hinges of national news parodies off the door and release a monster back into its natural environment. Audience members are encouraged to participate in this experimental multi-disciplinary immersive experience of stand-up comedy, music, dance, poetry, special effects and costumes.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Word, D.W.

Particular examples are bound to be contested, and if they become personal examples, they are flirting with ban territory based on recent mod activity.

Something I've experienced in the past is this: avoiding a thread because I made a mistake or said something wrong, and it's difficult to keep engaging without eating crow.

Another thing I've experienced is the urge to defend my argument even when it's fundamentally flawed in a way that has become evident.

In both cases, it's often hard to realize that it is happening while in the moment. I think it's a normal function of bias, sometimes the fundamental attribution error, and in some cases cognitive dissonance.

What I want is for people to ask themselves if one of these things is happening. And if so, suck it up and admit the error. I think it would do wonders for moving debates along. I could be wrong about that, though.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Let me be the first to say that I hope "mental twerkings" never catches on.

I thought it was a creative riff off of "mental workings," and methinks a distasteful phenomenon deserves a distasteful descriptor.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I retract my objection. However Louisiana’s Mental Twerking Ass. Is absurdly redundant.

That won out over something involving http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_traumatic_encephalopathy Just that kinda morning I guess.

[ February 03, 2014, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
One who has attained maturity.
There are many who'd argue that an indication of attaining maturity is the gravitas of mind to provide for one's self, say food, a roof over your head and health insurance. [Smile]

As we can see, this administration is interested in making children out of America where the government steps in and provides food, shelter, healthcare, etc. for people without consideration of their efforts to do so.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Another indication of maturity is the recognition that there are those in society who, through no fault of their own, fail to be able to provide for themselves, whether over the long term, or the short term. And, that sometimes, people who fail through their own fault, with some support, will be able to pick themselves back up and provide for themselves in the future.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When that percentage starts tripling, quadrupling and involves healthy people who are mostly capable of work but don't and won't because welfare pays better than getting a job, that's absurd.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So the unemployment numbers are high not because there aren't enough jobs but because people are unwilling to work? Isn't the definition of unemployment the percentage of people who want to work but are unable to find a job?
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
When that percentage starts tripling, quadrupling and involves healthy people who are mostly capable of work but don't and won't because welfare pays better than getting a job, that's absurd.
Sure. If thats actually the case, then its a problem. But since welfare payments are so low, its mostly a problem with the wages that the jobs being turned down are paying.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But since welfare payments are so low, its mostly a problem with the wages that the jobs being turned down are paying.
Wrong.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/02/on-labor-day-2013-welfare-pays-more-than-minimum-wage-work-in-35-states/

And in 13 states, it pays more than $15 an hour.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
When that percentage starts tripling, quadrupling and involves healthy people who are mostly capable of work but don't and won't because welfare pays better than getting a job, that's absurd.

But you don't think that it's absurd that so many of these "jobs" pay less than welfare? You see this as a problem of welfare paying too much rather than jobs paying too little. Correct?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
But since welfare payments are so low, its mostly a problem with the wages that the jobs being turned down are paying.
Wrong.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/02/on-labor-day-2013-welfare-pays-more-than-minimum-wage-work-in-35-states/

And in 13 states, it pays more than $15 an hour.

And in those states where it pays more than $15/hr, does welfare pay more than minimum wage?

Are you, btw, counting medicaid as "welfare"?

For example, I would have to earn about $250,000 a year in order to pay what my son requires in medicine. When I've taken jobs that made $50,000/year I've been threatened with my son's medicaid being cut off. And when I put my son on the insurance for that company, I've always lost my job within 30 days as the company found out what I was doing to their medical insurance. So if I take a $35k job so I can keep my son's medical insurance with the feds, to keep him on the meds that keep him from going into seizures and dangerous schizophrenia, am I being a welfare moocher?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, the "$15/hr" is the "value" of the benefits. It's not cash received. So if you get a job with health insurance, that insurance doesn't count as part of your wage, but if you are unemployed and receive medicaid all of sudden medicaid is considered equivalent to income.

As I recall that study is also using the maximum possible benefit for someone who qualifies for all programs, and it ignores the fact that some of the programs are time limited and therefore not a long-term incentive.

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Wrong
That word doesn't mean what you think it means.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So, how did Cato produce this particular masterpiece of disinformation?

It was really quite simple.

They begin by lumping together eight different safety net programs and then presume that a single woman with two children is receiving the benefit of each and every one of these programs at any given moment.

Of course, the only problem with this approach to building their model is that one need not be a social scientist to know that there are a scant few welfare recipients who would actually qualify to receive all of these programs, particularly at the same time.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/09/03/the-conservative-case-for-welfare-reform-suffers-massive-blow-via-cato-institute-study/
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
When that percentage starts tripling, quadrupling and involves healthy people who are mostly capable of work but don't and won't because welfare pays better than getting a job, that's absurd.

But you don't think that it's absurd that so many of these "jobs" pay less than welfare? You see this as a problem of welfare paying too much rather than jobs paying too little. Correct?
Also note that most welfare is collected as a supplement to wages, not as a replacement for them. There's a significant amount of misinformation embedded in simply trying to pretend that it's an either/or proposition, instead of being clear about the fact that the disparity points to just how insufficient baseline pay is.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
So, how did Cato produce this particular masterpiece of disinformation?

It was really quite simple.

They begin by lumping together eight different safety net programs and then presume that a single woman with two children is receiving the benefit of each and every one of these programs at any given moment.

Of course, the only problem with this approach to building their model is that one need not be a social scientist to know that there are a scant few welfare recipients who would actually qualify to receive all of these programs, particularly at the same time.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/09/03/the-conservative-case-for-welfare-reform-suffers-massive-blow-via-cato-institute-study/
So now we can wait for Seneca to make yet another well-earned apology for polluting the forum with disinformation. I say that knowing that he will report this post in addition to the many others he has already reported today. Look for the little message just below that says, "Al, please check your email."

As someone else pointed out, I'm beginning to wonder if his dictionary has a bad definition for "wrong" in addition to the bogus one for "adult".

Ai: please see your email. -OrneryMod

[ February 04, 2014, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: OrneryMod ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
I'm really tired of people on this forum refusing to acknowledge when their arguments have been clearly refuted.

I think I'm tired of people claiming to refute arguments when they've merely proferred countrary opinions, or reasoned positions based on contrary (and only slightly better assumptions). What percentage of claimed refutations do you think are accurate?
quote:
The most blatant kind is when you pretend you are still correct and keep repeating the refuted argument (without addressing the refutation).
I have hardly ever seen such a thing as a "refuted argument", and even when it occurs it rarely results in an invalid position, as few if any positions rely on single arguments.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm still waiting to see who is the Objective Judge of What Has Been Refuted And Shall Always Remain So. It sounds like an interesting job.

Until we know who that person is, or if they even exist, perhaps it would be better never to assume that this is ever the case and that discussion on something can ever be "over."

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would love to see you stubbornly insist that 2+2 = 5. I wonder how long you could keep it going, on the grounds that discussion can never really be over.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I would love to see you stubbornly insist that 2+2 = 5. I wonder how long you could keep it going, on the grounds that discussion can never really be over.

And any math major could show you the proof that 2+2=5. How does it help your refutation analysis?
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1