Free speech, personal responsibility, respect for others, and general conduct
- Thread starter Adam
- Start date
Northie:
You could just delete them.
I like my "Xev vs. Sciforums" thread. I think I'm going to go crush Japanese model cities.
Don't go using logic to invalidate my claim...trying to make a point like Wet1 here.
We're not supposed to use logic to invalidate claims? So your claim is illogical?
I like it, Chosen, I like it.
I thought words don't hurt?
Sarcasm.
Okay okay okay, no more point to arguing. It's been fun.
You could just delete them.
I like my "Xev vs. Sciforums" thread. I think I'm going to go crush Japanese model cities.
Don't go using logic to invalidate my claim...trying to make a point like Wet1 here.
We're not supposed to use logic to invalidate claims? So your claim is illogical?
I like it, Chosen, I like it.
I thought words don't hurt?
Sarcasm.
Okay okay okay, no more point to arguing. It's been fun.
~The_Chosen~
Registered Senior Member
Xev, you're a geek
I did not explicitly mean the entire realm and encompassment of logic here. Use your common sense and stop being such a nerd. Anyone can invalidate that claim and say I have no proof for such and so on.
The point is...well the point...it was very nerd-like of you to say Wet1's argument isn't valid because of "straw man" - I mean common sense here Xevvy.
And...Adam, you're such a little prick, more slander to feed the entire forum in that little signature of yours eh? And I'm suppose to be the jackass? What the hell warrants your behavior Adam?
Yea, it has geek...
I did not explicitly mean the entire realm and encompassment of logic here. Use your common sense and stop being such a nerd. Anyone can invalidate that claim and say I have no proof for such and so on.
The point is...well the point...it was very nerd-like of you to say Wet1's argument isn't valid because of "straw man" - I mean common sense here Xevvy.
And...Adam, you're such a little prick, more slander to feed the entire forum in that little signature of yours eh? And I'm suppose to be the jackass? What the hell warrants your behavior Adam?
Yea, it has geek...
~The_Chosen~
Registered Senior Member
Originally posted by Adam
Hey, call me anything you want, just leave the money on the table by the door on your way out.
Whatever monkey.
Xev:
Geek!!
A4Ever:
What rules? Adam is a slandering prick.
~The_Chosen~
Registered Senior Member
Adam
That is defamation to put it in a better term.
What you are trying to do is attack my reputation, purposely.
Refutation on Adam's defamation:
Point taken Adam, now take this point and keep it in your head for the rest of your life.
That is defamation to put it in a better term.
What you are trying to do is attack my reputation, purposely.
Refutation on Adam's defamation:
- All negative assertions and statements made concerning advice about women have been quoted by the respectable sciforums.com members, notably Tyler who debated with me. I never mentioned a statement of disrespect about a woman.
- Xenu, stated to me, "Women aren't property", nowhere have I said that. But ~The_Chosen~, you deleted all your posts!! Refer to point 1. I deleted the threads for that purpose, people all over were insulting, criticizing, and flaming without reasonable causes and rebuttals.
- As for the logic, I never meant in a sense of the total realm of logic. Xev, supposedly "invalidated" Wet1's argument by saying it was "strawman" - I mean, come on, Wet1 was trying to make a point and not prove the existence of anything, etc. Refer to the logical order of this thread.
Point taken Adam, now take this point and keep it in your head for the rest of your life.
Last edited:
~The_Chosen~
Registered Senior Member
What you think the *point* was?
Mr. Adam, you are a sciforums.com person, an intellect.
Now, why did you make such a baseless claim? Where are your reasons that you always fail to give to me.
Mr. Adam, you are a sciforums.com person, an intellect.
Now, why did you make such a baseless claim? Where are your reasons that you always fail to give to me.
Re: What you think the *point* was?
ahhaaahaha.... eheheheeee... erm... *cough*...
excuse me.
ahhaaahaha.... eheheheeee... erm... *cough*...
excuse me.
~The_Chosen~
Registered Senior Member
Monkey
In a general sense is what I meant. You do make baseless claims.
And Adam, you get the joke in this thread! Great!
In a general sense is what I meant. You do make baseless claims.
And Adam, you get the joke in this thread! Great! I haven't seen this level of intellect since they let a squad of cheerleaders loose in Fermilab.
No, it isn't.
DEFAMATION - An act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation. Such defamation is couched in 'defamatory language'. Libel and slander are defamation.
Same source as last time, Chosen, I'd advise you to look up these terms before using them.
BTW, truth is a defense for both defamation, libel and slander.
Oh, and Chosen, if you can't handle fallacies being labelled, I'd advise you to avoid debates.
No, it isn't.
DEFAMATION - An act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation. Such defamation is couched in 'defamatory language'. Libel and slander are defamation.
Same source as last time, Chosen, I'd advise you to look up these terms before using them.
BTW, truth is a defense for both defamation, libel and slander.
Oh, and Chosen, if you can't handle fallacies being labelled, I'd advise you to avoid debates.
~The_Chosen~
Registered Senior Member
Xev
Who are you refering to?
I already provided the rebuttals (truth), and Adam won't remove those comments in his signature. I'm not going down to his level and playing the stupid game with him.
Defamation: An act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation.
Adam's signature is an act of communication that causes ~The_Chosen~ to be possibly suffering a damage reputation. But it is not libel or slander.
If you want to play the game of terminology and context...Traducement, he is misrepresenting my information. Damaging my reputation. Read the signature, what do you conclude after done reading?
Fallacies? If you can't appropiately label the fallacies and apply it where relevant, I suggest you to avoid debates also.
Originally posted by Xev
I haven't seen this level of intellect since they let a squad of cheerleaders loose in Fermilab.
Who are you refering to?
I already provided the rebuttals (truth), and Adam won't remove those comments in his signature.
I'm not going down to his level and playing the stupid game with him.Defamation: An act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation.
Adam's signature is an act of communication that causes ~The_Chosen~ to be possibly suffering a damage reputation. But it is not libel or slander.
If you want to play the game of terminology and context...Traducement, he is misrepresenting my information. Damaging my reputation. Read the signature, what do you conclude after done reading?
Fallacies? If you can't appropiately label the fallacies and apply it where relevant, I suggest you to avoid debates also.