In memory of those we lost in the past years... this dedication is to you, the eccentrics, the free thinkers, people who made a difference in our lives both in the real world and on the net.Thank you for the memories.
0 Members and 11 Guests are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Squidusa on February 06, 2012, 04:05:45 AMQuote from: Al Swearengen on February 06, 2012, 03:53:28 AMWhat forum is this posted in?...shit. Editing post now.Sure. Not the first time and you have done worse i suppose. i guess I will edit mine too then.
Quote from: Al Swearengen on February 06, 2012, 03:53:28 AMWhat forum is this posted in?...shit. Editing post now.
What forum is this posted in?
I'll just diagnose myself as Goddess of the Universe and have done with it. Hell with autism!
nice is just something written on biscuits.
He didn't put any motives behind it, did he? Sounds to me you did some projecting.
Sure. Not the first time and you have done worse i suppose. i guess I will edit mine too then.
Of courseYou said something similar about my reaction to something callaway said the other weekOBVIOUSLY the past behaviour of a person is gonna affect how I interpret their current behaviourHaving said that though, even if someone like butterflies had said somethign like that , I would have been shocked as I would still have thought it sounded kinda bitchy. But the fact that it was Les confirmed me in tht
Quote from: odeon on February 06, 2012, 02:20:14 PMHe didn't put any motives behind it, did he? Sounds to me you did some projecting.Quote from: Al Swearengen on February 06, 2012, 04:09:41 AMSure. Not the first time and you have done worse i suppose. i guess I will edit mine too then.To me that sounds like he is suggesting motives , but no matter no big deal.
you will always judge Callaway and Sir Les differently from others,
Quote from: Squidusa on February 06, 2012, 02:44:34 PMQuote from: odeon on February 06, 2012, 02:20:14 PMHe didn't put any motives behind it, did he? Sounds to me you did some projecting.Quote from: Al Swearengen on February 06, 2012, 04:09:41 AMSure. Not the first time and you have done worse i suppose. i guess I will edit mine too then.To me that sounds like he is suggesting motives , but no matter no big deal.Better to make this to be about Sir Les than say "sorry, I shouldn't have".No big deal. Right.
Let's face it, Adam, you will always judge Callaway and Sir Les differently from others, regardless, and every time your motives will be clear.You are not very hard to read or second-guess.
Quote from: odeon on February 06, 2012, 02:54:43 PMLet's face it, Adam, you will always judge Callaway and Sir Les differently from others, regardless, and every time your motives will be clear.You are not very hard to read or second-guess.Isn't that a Circumstantial Ad Hominem? Shouldn't you be aware of that? You know, seeing as you love fallacies so much?(and yeah I'm probably conducting a fallacy in this)
Quote from: Ceilidh on February 06, 2012, 03:11:43 PMQuote from: odeon on February 06, 2012, 02:54:43 PMLet's face it, Adam, you will always judge Callaway and Sir Les differently from others, regardless, and every time your motives will be clear.You are not very hard to read or second-guess.Isn't that a Circumstantial Ad Hominem? Shouldn't you be aware of that? You know, seeing as you love fallacies so much?(and yeah I'm probably conducting a fallacy in this) Actually, it is not. According to the link you posted, "the circumstantial fallacy applies only where the source taking a position is only making a logical argument from premises that are generally accepted. Where the source seeks to convince an audience of the truth of a premise by a claim of authority or by personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero."
Quote from: Al Swearengen on February 06, 2012, 03:31:39 AMQuote from: Adam on February 06, 2012, 03:26:39 AModeon's made it clear that bc will be banned each time he returns, and most people seem to think that Emile is bc. so I don't think it's such an unsubstantiated claim to mak realllyMost people that sure. He has that pretty identifiable style. But who said he WAS Buttcoffee and who said he was getting banned for being Buttcoffee? Butterflies seemed to draw it like a forgone conclusion. Is that right or am I misreading? "He should not be banned". Seems to suggest people have indicated that he should. Have they and i have missed it? Sounded like she was trying to reprieve him from a fate that was not in question in the first place?http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,19189.msg860440.html#msg860440Odeon made another post about looking for proof that he is Buttcoffee and when/if he finds it BC is banned.
Quote from: Adam on February 06, 2012, 03:26:39 AModeon's made it clear that bc will be banned each time he returns, and most people seem to think that Emile is bc. so I don't think it's such an unsubstantiated claim to mak realllyMost people that sure. He has that pretty identifiable style. But who said he WAS Buttcoffee and who said he was getting banned for being Buttcoffee? Butterflies seemed to draw it like a forgone conclusion. Is that right or am I misreading? "He should not be banned". Seems to suggest people have indicated that he should. Have they and i have missed it? Sounded like she was trying to reprieve him from a fate that was not in question in the first place?
odeon's made it clear that bc will be banned each time he returns, and most people seem to think that Emile is bc. so I don't think it's such an unsubstantiated claim to mak reallly
Quote from: Squidusa on February 06, 2012, 03:50:05 AMQuote from: Al Swearengen on February 06, 2012, 03:31:39 AMQuote from: Adam on February 06, 2012, 03:26:39 AModeon's made it clear that bc will be banned each time he returns, and most people seem to think that Emile is bc. so I don't think it's such an unsubstantiated claim to mak realllyMost people that sure. He has that pretty identifiable style. But who said he WAS Buttcoffee and who said he was getting banned for being Buttcoffee? Butterflies seemed to draw it like a forgone conclusion. Is that right or am I misreading? "He should not be banned". Seems to suggest people have indicated that he should. Have they and i have missed it? Sounded like she was trying to reprieve him from a fate that was not in question in the first place?http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,19189.msg860440.html#msg860440Odeon made another post about looking for proof that he is Buttcoffee and when/if he finds it BC is banned.How come I cannot read that thread? It says I am not allowed to read.