 |
| |
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:27
|
|
GP - quote:
Oh...and Berzie, the threads were referring to each other. |
No they didn't. They were a month apart and in the first one we debated lotteries and in the second, a debate about libertarianism you jumped into late, we ended up debating if we had debated lotteries.  That's how inane you were. Once you informed me that you meant that we had debated lotteries in an old thread, I acknowledged we had.
quote:
And instead of having a big argument disagreeing with me, you could have just investigated it and said "George is right...oh, but it was a while ago." |
That's exactly what I said once you identified the old thread. But you expected me to track down an old thread when you didn't even bother telling me you meant an old thread? I might have if you had told me you meant the debate about lotteries occured in an old thread instead of leaving the impression you meant the current thread. Even you complained about how long it took for you to track down the old thread, so why expect me to do your research?
quote:
Instead you debated what you had said endlessly until finally pinned down. At that point, coming out with the "it was old" sounds pretty ****ing weak. |
Not at all, I kept asking you to identify where in the current thread we debated lotteries and you kept ignoring my request and never let on you meant an old thread until you went and found it. How was I supposed to know you meant an old thread? Agathon and I had been debating lotteries in the second thread, so naturally, when you started talking about lotteries, I figured you meant the same thread with Agathon, not one from a month ago.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
TCO
|
 |
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
GP -
No they didn't. They were a month apart and in the first one we debated lotteries and in the second, a debate about libertarianism you jumped into late, we ended up debating if we had debated lotteries. That's how inane you were. Once you informed me that you meant that we had debated lotteries in an old thread, I acknowledged we had.
That's exactly what I said once you identified the old thread. But you expected me to track down an old thread when you didn't even bother telling me you meant an old thread? I might have if you had told me you meant the debate about lotteries occured in an old thread instead of leaving the impression you meant the current thread. Even you complained about how long it took for you to track down the old thread, so why expect me to do your research?
Not at all, I kept asking you to identify where in the current thread we debated lotteries and you kept ignoring my request and never let on you meant an old thread until you went and found it. How was I supposed to know you meant an old thread? Agathon and I had been debating lotteries in the second thread, so naturally, when you started talking about lotteries, I figured you meant the same thread with Agathon, not one from a month ago. |
Now I gotta go track it all down again. Suffice it to say that you were wrong. Will be back with some cut and paste crap to get your mouth watering.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-04-2003 18:56
Prove me wrong and I'll admit it. 
A continuous discussion my a$$, the prior thread was long dead and you know it. You entered a new, extremely long thread in which I was debating Agathon and started talking about statements made in a debate we had a month or so before without mentioning you were dredging up arguments made in the old thread. And what was the point of your flashback? Whether or not we had ever discussed lotteries? Sheesh! Can you get any more irrelevant? Well, yes, you just did in this thread with your BS...
|