No, CC offered an apology. Can anyone trust anything you write?
Another thing. You're attitude is one of judgementalism and bitter resentment. You ooze intolerance and hate in everything(almost) you write.
Jul 15, 2008
Jul 11, 2008
Record keeping
Patrick Ross = "So I'm going to tell you right now: keep pushing that. I absolutely will use any and all legal means to make sure that kind of nonsense comes to a stop.
Don't believe me? Keep pushing."
- - -
You are obviously very distant from an understanding of libel and slander lawsuits. So am I. But obviously, lulu's reply was meant to use such a statement in order to illuminate the egregiousnous of your assumption of agreement and then 'running with it' if someone doesn't respond in the negative to your original query. It was not an assertation of your character, it was only meant to illuminate the stupidity of your original assumption. That you construe her conjecture as libellious or slanderous further illustrates your misunderstanding of the principle involved.
It is obvious to a 5 year old that not saying 'no' does not therefore mean 'yes'. It is even more obtuse to expect someone to respond immediately on the internet because they might not even be aware or your original question. They may be busy elsewhere, etc.
Furthermore, just because you ask someone something does not automatically entail you to a responce. Do you think you are worthy of such respect and/or defference in other's eyes? Talk about haughty and childish narcisism.
Nevertheless, the argument that if you don't respond to an untrue statement/question about yourself means that you can 'run with it with the assumption of agreement' is what could set YOU up for slander if you want to insist on couching things in that light because it is YOU that is stunned enough to do such a thing as misconstrue an obvious situation, or act like you do.
If it is an act, that act then illuminates your malicious and childish nature to purposely misunterstand the other persons position in order to further your agenda.
Me, I just think you are childish and stupid - obviously so.
Don't believe me? Keep pushing."
- - -
You are obviously very distant from an understanding of libel and slander lawsuits. So am I. But obviously, lulu's reply was meant to use such a statement in order to illuminate the egregiousnous of your assumption of agreement and then 'running with it' if someone doesn't respond in the negative to your original query. It was not an assertation of your character, it was only meant to illuminate the stupidity of your original assumption. That you construe her conjecture as libellious or slanderous further illustrates your misunderstanding of the principle involved.
It is obvious to a 5 year old that not saying 'no' does not therefore mean 'yes'. It is even more obtuse to expect someone to respond immediately on the internet because they might not even be aware or your original question. They may be busy elsewhere, etc.
Furthermore, just because you ask someone something does not automatically entail you to a responce. Do you think you are worthy of such respect and/or defference in other's eyes? Talk about haughty and childish narcisism.
Nevertheless, the argument that if you don't respond to an untrue statement/question about yourself means that you can 'run with it with the assumption of agreement' is what could set YOU up for slander if you want to insist on couching things in that light because it is YOU that is stunned enough to do such a thing as misconstrue an obvious situation, or act like you do.
If it is an act, that act then illuminates your malicious and childish nature to purposely misunterstand the other persons position in order to further your agenda.
Me, I just think you are childish and stupid - obviously so.
Jul 3, 2008
Reply
from
mikmik said...
Sure, and it is likely that some being - god - with even more power and complexity than the universe as we know it, popped into existence.
rkball = "it fits with the total facts of our human experience, taken together, and, in terms of probabilities, is far more probable than the universe and our exquisite existence in it popping into existence by accident"
No it doesn't. Don' you ever get over proclaiming your opinion as fact? I mean, I already know your logic and reasoning is very flawed, so why would I give the slightwest bit of credence to your poorly construed opinion?
It is completely unreasonable and insipid to think that there is a god for there is no evidence of one, just an ad hoc explanation of a very contrived and limited understanding of reality. You think that non belief in something utterly fantastic is loopy, yet you have only your wish for an unsophisticated and banal explanation for your reason to exist.
I maintain that it is because of limited ability to reason and understand that provokes the dull to conjure up fantasies in order not to have to think, and obviously many of you cannot think on a very profound level.
One only has to read first year philosophy to understand that reasoning there is a god is at once falacious and impossible.
9:46 PM
mikmik said...
Sure, and it is likely that some being - god - with even more power and complexity than the universe as we know it, popped into existence.
rkball = "it fits with the total facts of our human experience, taken together, and, in terms of probabilities, is far more probable than the universe and our exquisite existence in it popping into existence by accident"
No it doesn't. Don' you ever get over proclaiming your opinion as fact? I mean, I already know your logic and reasoning is very flawed, so why would I give the slightwest bit of credence to your poorly construed opinion?
It is completely unreasonable and insipid to think that there is a god for there is no evidence of one, just an ad hoc explanation of a very contrived and limited understanding of reality. You think that non belief in something utterly fantastic is loopy, yet you have only your wish for an unsophisticated and banal explanation for your reason to exist.
I maintain that it is because of limited ability to reason and understand that provokes the dull to conjure up fantasies in order not to have to think, and obviously many of you cannot think on a very profound level.
One only has to read first year philosophy to understand that reasoning there is a god is at once falacious and impossible.
9:46 PM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)