<Removed>

[Symmetry]

Herpa derp a derp. I don't add a wage and other benefits like health insurance together. A herpa derp. Derp Derp. Derp derp erp.

Thanks, JB!

Stay classy BBS.

He's been at my throat ever since I foed him for making fun of the Holocaust. My entire family, save for my grandfather, was slaughtered by the Germans. Before my grandfather finally passed on, he spent several weeks reliving the war, waking up after naps and begging us to help him find his missing sister, who was abducted in Norway. And BBS had the audacity to tell me that I would find it therapeutic to join him in making fun of my massacred relatives.

And so, BBS continues to follow me around, berating me because he knows I can't see what he's writing so long as he's foed. He's the weakest person on this website. Pathetic... Attacking me constantly because I find his insulting the victims of the Holocaust to be so revolting. He's a goddamn bully and a cad.

Aye- he's an anything goes poster of late.

You guys are doing the whiny, bitchy thing again?

Keep your claws in, please, TGD.

[BigBallinStalin]

Herpa derp a derp. I don't add a wage and other benefits like health insurance together. A herpa derp. Derp Derp. Derp derp erp.

Thanks, JB!

WAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!!

WAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

WAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!.

You guys are doing the whiny, bitchy thing again?

Well, if you can't refute another's position using reasonable arguments, then get smug and bitchy. That's the general strategy, isn't it?


(confirmed)

[thegreekdog]

At the risk of being accused of bias (although, really, I don't always agree with BBS), the history of BBS vs. Symmetry or BBS vs. JB goes something like this:

Step One: JB/Symmetry make a point.
Step Two: BBS attempts to refute.
Step Three: JB/Symmetry do not adequately refute BBS's refutation.
Step Four: BBS notes the inadequacy.
Step Five: JB/Symmetry accuse BBS of being... whatever... ad hominem attacks usually.

When BBS gets into discussions with others (say, for example, Neoteny or Haggis), this process does not happen. Therefore, it's not BBS that's "an anything goes poster of late." If that was the case, there would be any number of forum regulars who we could sub in for JB or Symmetry. Perhaps it's you who is doing something wrong (I would say Step Five).

[BigBallinStalin]

At the risk of being accused of bias (although, really, I don't always agree with BBS), the history of BBS vs. Symmetry or BBS vs. JB goes something like this:

Step One: JB/Symmetry make a point.
Step Two: BBS attempts to refute.
Step Three: JB/Symmetry do not adequately refute BBS's refutation.
Step Four: BBS notes the inadequacy.
Step Five: JB/Symmetry accuse BBS of being... whatever... ad hominem attacks usually.

When BBS gets into discussions with others (say, for example, Neoteny or Haggis), this process does not happen. Therefore, it's not BBS that's "an anything goes poster of late." If that was the case, there would be any number of forum regulars who we could sub in for JB or Symmetry. Perhaps it's you who is doing something wrong (I would say Step Five).

Although I may think that you're a socialist destroying our freedoms since you advocate for public education, I'll have to agree with you on this.

[thegreekdog]

At the risk of being accused of bias (although, really, I don't always agree with BBS), the history of BBS vs. Symmetry or BBS vs. JB goes something like this:

Step One: JB/Symmetry make a point.
Step Two: BBS attempts to refute.
Step Three: JB/Symmetry do not adequately refute BBS's refutation.
Step Four: BBS notes the inadequacy.
Step Five: JB/Symmetry accuse BBS of being... whatever... ad hominem attacks usually.

When BBS gets into discussions with others (say, for example, Neoteny or Haggis), this process does not happen. Therefore, it's not BBS that's "an anything goes poster of late." If that was the case, there would be any number of forum regulars who we could sub in for JB or Symmetry. Perhaps it's you who is doing something wrong (I would say Step Five).

Although I may think that you're a socialist destroying our freedoms since you advocate for public education, I'll have to agree with you on this.

Everyone has their way to parachute out of an argument or discussion. I tend to ignore it until the topic moves to the second page. Phatscotty posts a random Batman video. Pimpdave makes a TPDS joke or leaves the building. I guess this is just the way JB and Symmetry have elected to get out of an argument or discussion. I happen to think it's absurd, but, again, I'm allegedly biased.

[Symmetry]

At the risk of being accused of bias (although, really, I don't always agree with BBS), the history of BBS vs. Symmetry or BBS vs. JB goes something like this:

Step One: JB/Symmetry make a point.
Step Two: BBS attempts to refute.
Step Three: JB/Symmetry do not adequately refute BBS's refutation.
Step Four: BBS notes the inadequacy.
Step Five: JB/Symmetry accuse BBS of being... whatever... ad hominem attacks usually.

When BBS gets into discussions with others (say, for example, Neoteny or Haggis), this process does not happen. Therefore, it's not BBS that's "an anything goes poster of late." If that was the case, there would be any number of forum regulars who we could sub in for JB or Symmetry. Perhaps it's you who is doing something wrong (I would say Step Five).

Well, he did get that ban for calling for my death. I'd say that's a bit of an ad hominem attack taken to the extreme. Still, of course, your analysis is unbiased and it's totally me attacking BBS.

[thegreekdog]

At the risk of being accused of bias (although, really, I don't always agree with BBS), the history of BBS vs. Symmetry or BBS vs. JB goes something like this:

Step One: JB/Symmetry make a point.
Step Two: BBS attempts to refute.
Step Three: JB/Symmetry do not adequately refute BBS's refutation.
Step Four: BBS notes the inadequacy.
Step Five: JB/Symmetry accuse BBS of being... whatever... ad hominem attacks usually.

When BBS gets into discussions with others (say, for example, Neoteny or Haggis), this process does not happen. Therefore, it's not BBS that's "an anything goes poster of late." If that was the case, there would be any number of forum regulars who we could sub in for JB or Symmetry. Perhaps it's you who is doing something wrong (I would say Step Five).

Well, he did get that ban for calling for my death. I'd say that's a bit of an ad hominem attack taken to the extreme. Still, of course, your analysis is unbiased and it's totally me attacking BBS.

If you recall (you may not), I criticized him for that decision at the time it occurred. So did many others. I don't think anyone took his side. Further, it was likely a venting of frustration for many instances of the above discussion process. Not an excuse, but it's not like the decision to create a cake or death thread was created in a vacuum.

[Symmetry]

At the risk of being accused of bias (although, really, I don't always agree with BBS), the history of BBS vs. Symmetry or BBS vs. JB goes something like this:

Step One: JB/Symmetry make a point.
Step Two: BBS attempts to refute.
Step Three: JB/Symmetry do not adequately refute BBS's refutation.
Step Four: BBS notes the inadequacy.
Step Five: JB/Symmetry accuse BBS of being... whatever... ad hominem attacks usually.

When BBS gets into discussions with others (say, for example, Neoteny or Haggis), this process does not happen. Therefore, it's not BBS that's "an anything goes poster of late." If that was the case, there would be any number of forum regulars who we could sub in for JB or Symmetry. Perhaps it's you who is doing something wrong (I would say Step Five).

Well, he did get that ban for calling for my death. I'd say that's a bit of an ad hominem attack taken to the extreme. Still, of course, your analysis is unbiased and it's totally me attacking BBS.

If you recall (you may not), I criticized him for that decision at the time it occurred. So did many others. I don't think anyone took his side. Further, it was likely a venting of frustration for many instances of the above discussion process. Not an excuse, but it's not like the decision to create a cake or death thread was created in a vacuum.

You feel I provoked him by arguing my points?

[thegreekdog]

At the risk of being accused of bias (although, really, I don't always agree with BBS), the history of BBS vs. Symmetry or BBS vs. JB goes something like this:

Step One: JB/Symmetry make a point.
Step Two: BBS attempts to refute.
Step Three: JB/Symmetry do not adequately refute BBS's refutation.
Step Four: BBS notes the inadequacy.
Step Five: JB/Symmetry accuse BBS of being... whatever... ad hominem attacks usually.

When BBS gets into discussions with others (say, for example, Neoteny or Haggis), this process does not happen. Therefore, it's not BBS that's "an anything goes poster of late." If that was the case, there would be any number of forum regulars who we could sub in for JB or Symmetry. Perhaps it's you who is doing something wrong (I would say Step Five).

Well, he did get that ban for calling for my death. I'd say that's a bit of an ad hominem attack taken to the extreme. Still, of course, your analysis is unbiased and it's totally me attacking BBS.

If you recall (you may not), I criticized him for that decision at the time it occurred. So did many others. I don't think anyone took his side. Further, it was likely a venting of frustration for many instances of the above discussion process. Not an excuse, but it's not like the decision to create a cake or death thread was created in a vacuum.

You feel I provoked him by arguing my points?

No. I feel he was frustrated by discussions with you that degenerated into ad hominem attacks. Not provocation and not an excuse, because I certainly would not have done what BBS did, no matter how much our discussions degenderated. And you and I have had similar discussion procedurals (which again, has to make you wonder, doesn't it, whether you are actually the one at fault since this happens to you a lot).

[patrickaa317]

So you were BSing, and your position was false?

What? Did you read the star tribune article?

Aye, i did. It didn't say anything you wanted it to say. Perhaps you could restate your arguments.

How many days straight have you been up? Here's our conversation in a nutshell to give you a recap because you seem a little lost at the moment.

I was talking to JB and stated that WalMart is starting people at $17/hour in ND.
You went and said the minimum wage in ND is $7.25
I said you were correct but what the heck does that have to do with WalMart starting people @ $17/hour and provided an article for your reference.
Then you asked what positions in WalMart those were.
I stated I assumed they were entry level positions because the source is a left leaning site and would have pointed out if they were anything but entry level.
You then stated that I was BSing and my position was false
I asked if you read the article
You said you did but it didn't say anything I wanted it to say.
I even quoted the section where it mentioned WalMart was hiring people @ $17 starting.
So what in the heck are you talking about?

Do you agree or disagree that WalMart in ND is starting people at $17/hour? No need for a fancy post, just an 'agree' or 'disagree' at this point. Once we figure out if you understand where we are in our conversation, then we can engage in further discussion.

[Juan_Bottom]

You guys are doing the whiny, bitchy thing again?

Didn't you try to quite McGill because you believe that Catholicism deserves the exact same "don't make fun" status that the Holocaust has? You're shit does stink, mr.

At the risk of being accused of bias (although, really, I don't always agree with BBS), the history of BBS vs. Symmetry or BBS vs. JB goes something like this:

Step One: JB/Symmetry make a point.
Step Two: BBS attempts to refute.
Step Three: JB/Symmetry do not adequately refute BBS's refutation.
Step Four: BBS notes the inadequacy.
Step Five: JB/Symmetry accuse BBS of being... whatever... ad hominem attacks usually.

When BBS gets into discussions with others (say, for example, Neoteny or Haggis), this process does not happen. Therefore, it's not BBS that's "an anything goes poster of late." If that was the case, there would be any number of forum regulars who we could sub in for JB or Symmetry. Perhaps it's you who is doing something wrong (I would say Step Five).

This is retarded. How insulting is this to me? YOU ALREADY KNOW and I HAVE ALREADY SAID IN THIS THREAD: I HAVE BBS ON FOE SO I CAN'T SEE HIS POSTS.

HOW THE f*ck DO I "INADEQUATELY REFUTE" SOME SHIT I CAN'T EVEN READ? That makes your whole post an outright lie. Take it back.

Obviously the reason Sym and I are in a whole other category is because we're the only one's who fricking think before we post. Jesus.

[Symmetry]

At the risk of being accused of bias (although, really, I don't always agree with BBS), the history of BBS vs. Symmetry or BBS vs. JB goes something like this:

Step One: JB/Symmetry make a point.
Step Two: BBS attempts to refute.
Step Three: JB/Symmetry do not adequately refute BBS's refutation.
Step Four: BBS notes the inadequacy.
Step Five: JB/Symmetry accuse BBS of being... whatever... ad hominem attacks usually.

When BBS gets into discussions with others (say, for example, Neoteny or Haggis), this process does not happen. Therefore, it's not BBS that's "an anything goes poster of late." If that was the case, there would be any number of forum regulars who we could sub in for JB or Symmetry. Perhaps it's you who is doing something wrong (I would say Step Five).

Well, he did get that ban for calling for my death. I'd say that's a bit of an ad hominem attack taken to the extreme. Still, of course, your analysis is unbiased and it's totally me attacking BBS.

If you recall (you may not), I criticized him for that decision at the time it occurred. So did many others. I don't think anyone took his side. Further, it was likely a venting of frustration for many instances of the above discussion process. Not an excuse, but it's not like the decision to create a cake or death thread was created in a vacuum.

You feel I provoked him by arguing my points?

No. I feel he was frustrated by discussions with you that degenerated into ad hominem attacks. Not provocation and not an excuse, because I certainly would not have done what BBS did, no matter how much our discussions degenderated. And you and I have had similar discussion procedurals (which again, has to make you wonder, doesn't it, whether you are actually the one at fault since this happens to you a lot).

I'm not sure about that- I've never had someone run out of arguments to justify their beliefs to an extent where they asked if I was better off dead till then. It was pretty extreme.

[patrickaa317]

Obviously the reason Sym and I are in a whole other category is because we're the only one's who fricking think before we post. Jesus.

Funniest shit I have heard in a while!!

Keep em coming JB! I need a mood lightener.

[thegreekdog]

Didn't you try to quite McGill because you believe that Catholicism deserves the exact same "don't make fun" status that the Holocaust has? You're shit does stink, mr.

No. I said I wouldn't read the anti-Catholic threads. And I don't.

Ultimately, my argument in McGill was that you didn't like (to put it mildly) the "making fun of the Holocaust by making up fake movie names" thread but you had no problem bashing Catholics in another thread. That seems hypocritical to me.

[Juan_Bottom]

No. I said I wouldn't read the anti-Catholic threads. And I don't.

Ultimately, my argument in McGill was that you didn't like (to put it mildly) the "making fun of the Holocaust by making up fake movie names" thread but you had no problem bashing Catholics in another thread. That seems hypocritical to me.

Willing Participation:



MASS GENOCIDE:



You really see no difference?

[Juan_Bottom]

Obviously the reason Sym and I are in a whole other category is because we're the only one's who fricking think before we post. Jesus.

Funniest shit I have heard in a while!!

Keep em coming JB! I need a mood lightener.

That wasn't directed at our discussion, but only at Greek's comment. Anyway, you should be on my side here too. You and I might disagree sometimes, but I'm not going to ever lie about you & slander you & try to make you look stupid. Even on the internet, there is a code of Honor between gentlemen. Is there not?

[thegreekdog]

No. I said I wouldn't read the anti-Catholic threads. And I don't.

Ultimately, my argument in McGill was that you didn't like (to put it mildly) the "making fun of the Holocaust by making up fake movie names" thread but you had no problem bashing Catholics in another thread. That seems hypocritical to me.

Willing Participation:



MASS GENOCIDE:



You really see no difference?

Between the two pictures above? I do see a difference.

The question is not that. The question is whether I see a difference between a thread lambasting Catholics and a thread making joke movie titles involving the Holocaust. As I indicated, to paraphrase, because you were offended, I stopped posting in that thread. I assumed you would treat me the same way (not that I asked for it, because I have this great ability to not read stuff that offends me), and you did not. As you indicated, there are gentlemenly ways to treat with others, even on the internet.

[BigBallinStalin]

At the risk of being accused of bias (although, really, I don't always agree with BBS), the history of BBS vs. Symmetry or BBS vs. JB goes something like this:

Step One: JB/Symmetry make a point.
Step Two: BBS attempts to refute.
Step Three: JB/Symmetry do not adequately refute BBS's refutation.
Step Four: BBS notes the inadequacy.
Step Five: JB/Symmetry accuse BBS of being... whatever... ad hominem attacks usually.

When BBS gets into discussions with others (say, for example, Neoteny or Haggis), this process does not happen. Therefore, it's not BBS that's "an anything goes poster of late." If that was the case, there would be any number of forum regulars who we could sub in for JB or Symmetry. Perhaps it's you who is doing something wrong (I would say Step Five).

Well, he did get that ban for calling for my death. I'd say that's a bit of an ad hominem attack taken to the extreme. Still, of course, your analysis is unbiased and it's totally me attacking BBS.

If you recall (you may not), I criticized him for that decision at the time it occurred. So did many others. I don't think anyone took his side. Further, it was likely a venting of frustration for many instances of the above discussion process. Not an excuse, but it's not like the decision to create a cake or death thread was created in a vacuum.

I still disagree with the majority opinion on the Cake Question, but the underlined is correct. At least, I've confirmed that people like Sym and JB aren't capable of rational discussion. But! At least we've got a 5-step model of their behavior.

They've been dunking themselves in the 5th step for the past few posts too--it appears.

[BigBallinStalin]

You guys are doing the whiny, bitchy thing again?

Didn't you try to quite McGill because you believe that Catholicism deserves the exact same "don't make fun" status that the Holocaust has? You're shit does stink, mr.

At the risk of being accused of bias (although, really, I don't always agree with BBS), the history of BBS vs. Symmetry or BBS vs. JB goes something like this:

Step One: JB/Symmetry make a point.
Step Two: BBS attempts to refute.
Step Three: JB/Symmetry do not adequately refute BBS's refutation.
Step Four: BBS notes the inadequacy.
Step Five: JB/Symmetry accuse BBS of being... whatever... ad hominem attacks usually.

When BBS gets into discussions with others (say, for example, Neoteny or Haggis), this process does not happen. Therefore, it's not BBS that's "an anything goes poster of late." If that was the case, there would be any number of forum regulars who we could sub in for JB or Symmetry. Perhaps it's you who is doing something wrong (I would say Step Five).

This is retarded. How insulting is this to me? YOU ALREADY KNOW and I HAVE ALREADY SAID IN THIS THREAD: I HAVE BBS ON FOE SO I CAN'T SEE HIS POSTS.

HOW THE f*ck DO I "INADEQUATELY REFUTE" SOME SHIT I CAN'T EVEN READ? That makes your whole post an outright lie. Take it back.

Obviously the reason Sym and I are in a whole other category is because we're the only one's who fricking think before we post. Jesus.

JB fails to recall the days when he didn't have me foe'd (Gee, JB's position took 5 seconds to sufficiently refute).

The 5-step process nevertheless applies to him recently as well as in the past.

[thegreekdog]

They've been dunking themselves in the 5th step for the past few posts too--it appears.

If you care to avoid any improriety, there are two ways to deal with this:

(1) Parachute away.
(2) Continue the discussion without resorting to ad hominems.

I've done both. Number (2) is more challenging but more rewarding. I've done (1) way more often.

[thegreekdog]

You guys are doing the whiny, bitchy thing again?

Didn't you try to quite McGill because you believe that Catholicism deserves the exact same "don't make fun" status that the Holocaust has? You're shit does stink, mr.

At the risk of being accused of bias (although, really, I don't always agree with BBS), the history of BBS vs. Symmetry or BBS vs. JB goes something like this:

Step One: JB/Symmetry make a point.
Step Two: BBS attempts to refute.
Step Three: JB/Symmetry do not adequately refute BBS's refutation.
Step Four: BBS notes the inadequacy.
Step Five: JB/Symmetry accuse BBS of being... whatever... ad hominem attacks usually.

When BBS gets into discussions with others (say, for example, Neoteny or Haggis), this process does not happen. Therefore, it's not BBS that's "an anything goes poster of late." If that was the case, there would be any number of forum regulars who we could sub in for JB or Symmetry. Perhaps it's you who is doing something wrong (I would say Step Five).

This is retarded. How insulting is this to me? YOU ALREADY KNOW and I HAVE ALREADY SAID IN THIS THREAD: I HAVE BBS ON FOE SO I CAN'T SEE HIS POSTS.

HOW THE f*ck DO I "INADEQUATELY REFUTE" SOME SHIT I CAN'T EVEN READ? That makes your whole post an outright lie. Take it back.

Obviously the reason Sym and I are in a whole other category is because we're the only one's who fricking think before we post. Jesus.

JB fails to recall the days when he didn't have me foe'd (Gee, JB's position took 5 seconds to sufficiently refute).

The 5-step process nevertheless applies to him recently as well as in the past.

I'm 45% of the way to concluding that JB is trolling you actually. He's a pretty sharp dude, probably a notch below Saxitoxin. I'm almost convinced that most of his pro-Democrat threads are trolls of Phatscotty threads. And he's been successful with those threads in catching people like me (and you and Saxi).

[Juan_Bottom]

You guys are doing the whiny, bitchy thing again?

Didn't you try to quite McGill because you believe that Catholicism deserves the exact same "don't make fun" status that the Holocaust has? You're shit does stink, mr.

At the risk of being accused of bias (although, really, I don't always agree with BBS), the history of BBS vs. Symmetry or BBS vs. JB goes something like this:

Step One: JB/Symmetry make a point.
Step Two: BBS attempts to refute.
Step Three: JB/Symmetry do not adequately refute BBS's refutation.
Step Four: BBS notes the inadequacy.
Step Five: JB/Symmetry accuse BBS of being... whatever... ad hominem attacks usually.

When BBS gets into discussions with others (say, for example, Neoteny or Haggis), this process does not happen. Therefore, it's not BBS that's "an anything goes poster of late." If that was the case, there would be any number of forum regulars who we could sub in for JB or Symmetry. Perhaps it's you who is doing something wrong (I would say Step Five).

This is retarded. How insulting is this to me? YOU ALREADY KNOW and I HAVE ALREADY SAID IN THIS THREAD: I HAVE BBS ON FOE SO I CAN'T SEE HIS POSTS.

HOW THE f*ck DO I "INADEQUATELY REFUTE" SOME SHIT I CAN'T EVEN READ? That makes your whole post an outright lie. Take it back.

Obviously the reason Sym and I are in a whole other category is because we're the only one's who fricking think before we post. Jesus.

JB fails to recall the days when he didn't have me foe'd (Gee, JB's position took 5 seconds to sufficiently refute).

The 5-step process nevertheless applies to him recently as well as in the past.

OH REALLY?
Hold on while I still have photobucket open.



You're a liar and a cad.

[BigBallinStalin]

No. I said I wouldn't read the anti-Catholic threads. And I don't.

Ultimately, my argument in McGill was that you didn't like (to put it mildly) the "making fun of the Holocaust by making up fake movie names" thread but you had no problem bashing Catholics in another thread. That seems hypocritical to me.

Willing Participation:
image of plain old inside of Church


MASS GENOCIDE:
appeal to emotion pic


You really see no difference?

This again is easy to break down.

1. TGD isn't arguing about a difference between genocide and those who arguably 'willingly' participate in a weekly mass.
2. JB insists that he is, thus creating a straw man fallacy.
3. TGD's point about JB implies that JB's being a 'militant' atheist toward the religious is insensitive. Yet, JB takes offense (i.e. becomes sensitive) to jokes about the Holocaust.
4. JB is being a hypocrite. He whines about a joke which offends his sensitive side, yet he has no problem inflicting emotional harm and anger on those who are sensitive about religion.


Let's apply this to the 5-step model:


Step One: JB makes a point.
Step Two: TGD attempts to refute. (mentions hypocrisy)
Step Three: JB does not adequately refute TGD's refutation. (JB relies on logical fallacies)
Step Four: BBS notes the inadequacy. (this post)

GUEST WHAT STEP 5 WILL BE?

Step Five: JB/Symmetry accuse BBS or TGD of being... whatever... ad hominem attacks usually.

(of course, since we mentioned this, they have an incentive to adjust their response accordingly).

[BigBallinStalin]

You guys are doing the whiny, bitchy thing again?

Didn't you try to quite McGill because you believe that Catholicism deserves the exact same "don't make fun" status that the Holocaust has? You're shit does stink, mr.

At the risk of being accused of bias (although, really, I don't always agree with BBS), the history of BBS vs. Symmetry or BBS vs. JB goes something like this:

Step One: JB/Symmetry make a point.
Step Two: BBS attempts to refute.
Step Three: JB/Symmetry do not adequately refute BBS's refutation.
Step Four: BBS notes the inadequacy.
Step Five: JB/Symmetry accuse BBS of being... whatever... ad hominem attacks usually.

When BBS gets into discussions with others (say, for example, Neoteny or Haggis), this process does not happen. Therefore, it's not BBS that's "an anything goes poster of late." If that was the case, there would be any number of forum regulars who we could sub in for JB or Symmetry. Perhaps it's you who is doing something wrong (I would say Step Five).

This is retarded. How insulting is this to me? YOU ALREADY KNOW and I HAVE ALREADY SAID IN THIS THREAD: I HAVE BBS ON FOE SO I CAN'T SEE HIS POSTS.

HOW THE f*ck DO I "INADEQUATELY REFUTE" SOME SHIT I CAN'T EVEN READ? That makes your whole post an outright lie. Take it back.

Obviously the reason Sym and I are in a whole other category is because we're the only one's who fricking think before we post. Jesus.

JB fails to recall the days when he didn't have me foe'd (Gee, JB's position took 5 seconds to sufficiently refute).

The 5-step process nevertheless applies to him recently as well as in the past.

OH REALLY?
Hold on while I still have photobucket open.



You're a liar and a cad.

Step One: JB makes a point.
Step Two: BBS attempts to refute. (mentions lack of citations)
Step Three: JB does not adequately refute BBS's refutation. (JB provides no citations, only points to his own words)
Step Four: BBS notes the inadequacy. (this post and the previous one)
Step Five: JB accuses BBS of being... whatever... ad hominem attacks usually. ("You're a liar and a cad.").


That was easy.

[thegreekdog]

Oh my fucking Cthullu JB, you used Bernie Sanders as a source and didn't even provide a fucking link.

(of course, since we mentioned this, they have an incentive to adjust their response accordingly).

Yes, that is ultimately my goal - get them to adjust their responses accordingly.

And with that, I'm going to bed. I hope you guys work it out. I earnestly hope:

(1) That JB is trolling BBS.
(2) That no one is banned.
(3) That JB and Symmetry think about their arguments in the future.

I expect:

(1) That JB is trolling BBS.
(2) That one or both of JB and BBS will be warned or banned.
(3) That JB and Symmetry will continue the five step process in the future.