That was never a scientific theory based on scientific method and mountains of empirical evidence. Get that weak creationist horseshit out of here.
Neato, but opinions of uneducated slobs like you and me are worth exactly this much: one vote. I will defer to scientists, thanks.
What is the point of having a discussion with a dishonest person like you? There isn't any.
But it was not a scientific theory based on empirical evidence. So, no comparison whatsoever. You are not going to mince and slither your way around this.
Not in any way "arbitrary" at all --- it's journalism 101, long established way before either of us were born. I certainly didn't make it up.
And that standard is not met here. Absent. Not found. Devoid. A vacuum.
Prove me wrong. Go ahead, we're on the third week.
I don't have to indulge you with jack shit. Please to essplain to the class where USMB declares you're the boss o' me. TIA. Your not-at-all-on-topic "question" is one you should have asked and established BEFORE you ass-sumed its answer on the basis of nothing whatsoever. Much like the basis of this OP article. Now you're gonna sit and squirm on BOTH of those fuckups. So no Sprinkles, I'm hardly the one "found wanting" here.
You can't answer a two-week-old question and now you wanna throw a tantrum about it. Sad.
Not in any way "arbitrary" at all --- it's journalism 101, long established way before either of us were born. I certainly didn't make it up.
And that standard is not met here. Absent. Not found. Devoid. A vacuum.
Prove me wrong. Go ahead, we're on the third week.
I don't have to indulge you with jack shit. Please to essplain to the class where USMB declares you're the boss o' me. TIA. Your not-at-all-on-topic "question" is one you should have asked and established BEFORE you ass-sumed its answer on the basis of nothing whatsoever. Much like the basis of this OP article. Now you're gonna sit and squirm on BOTH of those fuckups. So no Sprinkles, I'm hardly the one "found wanting" here.
You can't answer a two-week-old question and now you wanna throw a tantrum about it. Sad.
You avoid taking positions because you can't stand up to actual debate. you snipe from the sidelines, argue source over content, and generally act like a useless troll.
Your question is moot, because even if another source came out for the story, you would deny that as well. It's your nature, and I have you figured out.
Not in any way "arbitrary" at all --- it's journalism 101, long established way before either of us were born. I certainly didn't make it up.
And that standard is not met here. Absent. Not found. Devoid. A vacuum.
Prove me wrong. Go ahead, we're on the third week.
I don't have to indulge you with jack shit. Please to essplain to the class where USMB declares you're the boss o' me. TIA. Your not-at-all-on-topic "question" is one you should have asked and established BEFORE you ass-sumed its answer on the basis of nothing whatsoever. Much like the basis of this OP article. Now you're gonna sit and squirm on BOTH of those fuckups. So no Sprinkles, I'm hardly the one "found wanting" here.
You can't answer a two-week-old question and now you wanna throw a tantrum about it. Sad.
You avoid taking positions because you can't stand up to actual debate. you snipe from the sidelines, argue source over content, and generally act like a useless troll.
Your question is moot, because even if another source came out for the story, you would deny that as well. It's your nature, and I have you figured out.
I take positions on either what I'm interested in or knowledgeable about. MOST of the topics ever brought up here prolly have no involvement from me, OR from you. No one, literally zero people, takes positions on literally EVERYTHING. That's absurd. It's also number one.
Number two is a speculation fallacy. You no more "know" what position I "would" take given credible evidence that any such event actually happened, than you "know" an event you weren't there to witness and can't find anyone who was, DID happen.
This might come as a shock but the events of the world don't just materialize out of your Imaginarium.
Meanwhile --- eighteen days after this let's-pretend piece hit the internets, there remains the same zero evidence that the event ever took place outside the imaginarium of the site's own admitted agent. Yet here you sit day after day continuing to whine about the fact that my call back in post 4 was spot on.
Sad.
Not in any way "arbitrary" at all --- it's journalism 101, long established way before either of us were born. I certainly didn't make it up.
And that standard is not met here. Absent. Not found. Devoid. A vacuum.
Prove me wrong. Go ahead, we're on the third week.
I don't have to indulge you with jack shit. Please to essplain to the class where USMB declares you're the boss o' me. TIA. Your not-at-all-on-topic "question" is one you should have asked and established BEFORE you ass-sumed its answer on the basis of nothing whatsoever. Much like the basis of this OP article. Now you're gonna sit and squirm on BOTH of those fuckups. So no Sprinkles, I'm hardly the one "found wanting" here.
You can't answer a two-week-old question and now you wanna throw a tantrum about it. Sad.
You avoid taking positions because you can't stand up to actual debate. you snipe from the sidelines, argue source over content, and generally act like a useless troll.
Your question is moot, because even if another source came out for the story, you would deny that as well. It's your nature, and I have you figured out.
I take positions on either what I'm interested in or knowledgeable about. MOST of the topics ever brought up here prolly have no involvement from me, OR from you. No one, literally zero people, takes positions on literally EVERYTHING. That's absurd. It's also number one.
Number two is a speculation fallacy. You no more "know" what position I "would" take given credible evidence that any such event actually happened, than you "know" an event you weren't there to witness and can't find anyone who was, DID happen.
This might come as a shock but the events of the world don't just materialize out of your Imaginarium.
Meanwhile --- eighteen days after this let's-pretend piece hit the internets, there remains the same zero evidence that the event ever took place outside the imaginarium of the site's own admitted agent. Yet here you sit day after day continuing to whine about the fact that my call back in post 4 was spot on.
Sad.
Stop trying to stall and answer the question. Do you support the Impeachment of Trump or not?
Not in any way "arbitrary" at all --- it's journalism 101, long established way before either of us were born. I certainly didn't make it up.
And that standard is not met here. Absent. Not found. Devoid. A vacuum.
Prove me wrong. Go ahead, we're on the third week.
I don't have to indulge you with jack shit. Please to essplain to the class where USMB declares you're the boss o' me. TIA. Your not-at-all-on-topic "question" is one you should have asked and established BEFORE you ass-sumed its answer on the basis of nothing whatsoever. Much like the basis of this OP article. Now you're gonna sit and squirm on BOTH of those fuckups. So no Sprinkles, I'm hardly the one "found wanting" here.
You can't answer a two-week-old question and now you wanna throw a tantrum about it. Sad.
You avoid taking positions because you can't stand up to actual debate. you snipe from the sidelines, argue source over content, and generally act like a useless troll.
Your question is moot, because even if another source came out for the story, you would deny that as well. It's your nature, and I have you figured out.
I take positions on either what I'm interested in or knowledgeable about. MOST of the topics ever brought up here prolly have no involvement from me, OR from you. No one, literally zero people, takes positions on literally EVERYTHING. That's absurd. It's also number one.
Number two is a speculation fallacy. You no more "know" what position I "would" take given credible evidence that any such event actually happened, than you "know" an event you weren't there to witness and can't find anyone who was, DID happen.
This might come as a shock but the events of the world don't just materialize out of your Imaginarium.
Meanwhile --- eighteen days after this let's-pretend piece hit the internets, there remains the same zero evidence that the event ever took place outside the imaginarium of the site's own admitted agent. Yet here you sit day after day continuing to whine about the fact that my call back in post 4 was spot on.
Sad.
Stop trying to stall and answer the question. Do you support the Impeachment of Trump or not?
Not in any way "arbitrary" at all --- it's journalism 101, long established way before either of us were born. I certainly didn't make it up.
And that standard is not met here. Absent. Not found. Devoid. A vacuum.
Prove me wrong. Go ahead, we're on the third week.
I don't have to indulge you with jack shit. Please to essplain to the class where USMB declares you're the boss o' me. TIA. Your not-at-all-on-topic "question" is one you should have asked and established BEFORE you ass-sumed its answer on the basis of nothing whatsoever. Much like the basis of this OP article. Now you're gonna sit and squirm on BOTH of those fuckups. So no Sprinkles, I'm hardly the one "found wanting" here.
You can't answer a two-week-old question and now you wanna throw a tantrum about it. Sad.
You avoid taking positions because you can't stand up to actual debate. you snipe from the sidelines, argue source over content, and generally act like a useless troll.
Your question is moot, because even if another source came out for the story, you would deny that as well. It's your nature, and I have you figured out.
I take positions on either what I'm interested in or knowledgeable about. MOST of the topics ever brought up here prolly have no involvement from me, OR from you. No one, literally zero people, takes positions on literally EVERYTHING. That's absurd. It's also number one.
Number two is a speculation fallacy. You no more "know" what position I "would" take given credible evidence that any such event actually happened, than you "know" an event you weren't there to witness and can't find anyone who was, DID happen.
This might come as a shock but the events of the world don't just materialize out of your Imaginarium.
Meanwhile --- eighteen days after this let's-pretend piece hit the internets, there remains the same zero evidence that the event ever took place outside the imaginarium of the site's own admitted agent. Yet here you sit day after day continuing to whine about the fact that my call back in post 4 was spot on.
Sad.
Stop trying to stall and answer the question. Do you support the Impeachment of Trump or not?
Answer the question.
Answer the question.
Read the topic.
Then read post 4.
Then answer that question. From two weeks ago.
Answer the question.
Read the topic.
Then read post 4.
Then answer that question. From two weeks ago.
No, I am asking you this question. Why can't or won't you answer it?
Answer the question.
Read the topic.
Then read post 4.
Then answer that question. From two weeks ago.
No, I am asking you this question. Why can't or won't you answer it?
Day 15. Still nothing.
Thread still valiantly hanging on in its heroic struggle to remain dead.
OP? He gone.
Answer the question.
Read the topic.
Then read post 4.
Then answer that question. From two weeks ago.
No, I am asking you this question. Why can't or won't you answer it?
Day 15. Still nothing.
Thread still valiantly hanging on in its heroic struggle to remain dead.
OP? He gone.
All you have to do is answer one question, do you support the impeachment of Trump, or not.
No, I am asking you this question. Why can't or won't you answer it?
Day 15. Still nothing.
Thread still valiantly hanging on in its heroic struggle to remain dead.
OP? He gone.
All you have to do is answer one question, do you support the impeachment of Trump, or not.
All you have to do is answer post 4. I'm not laying any bets on it though.
