124 Reasons

[1234]

So you admit you have no evidence for your claims and use purely subjective/value judgements rather than recognised norms/statistics/facts.

Your attempts to twist out of answering anything are transparent to all. You cling to your new security blanket like a small child, unwilling to accept proof that contradicts your beliefs. Note I use the word beliefs deliberately. Beliefs do not need facts to sustain them, and often stand in denial of facts.

Your new "blanket" is useless in proving your case and just highlights your lack of arguments/proof.

Sad, within a few days of debating here with you I have managed to reduce you to the level of a child with their security blanket. This from the person with the tagline "think! like I do!" under their name. Tragic, really tragic.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by 1234@16 January 2004 - 13:03
Tragic, really tragic.

Trite, really trite.

Come now, 1234-

Who is being monotonously repetitive here?

You are here for one reason, and one reason only, and you have already stated it in the clearest terms.

You have failed in your endeavor to have me banned, or to run me off, or otherwise "vanquish" me.

If you continue in this vein, your failure will follow you, and your reason for being here will thus be re-defined.

I will admit-now I am merely tweaking you, but I have concluded that is all you deserve, due to your methods in this forum.

I don't believe I have "insulted" you in this post either, unless you wish to somehow ascertain my intent to reveal in you a tunnel-vision which hinders any effect you might otherwise have, were your purpose to actually debate, rather than to engage me continually.

So-

I will now re-commence ignoring you, unless it turns out that I can look in your direction and not find myself staring down the barrel of your liberal pea-shooter.

[1234]

Who is being monotonously repetitive here?

The common opinion on the board appears to indicate ... you.

You are here for one reason, and one reason only, and you have already stated it in the clearest terms

Nope, I was here long before I stated that I will report anything you do out of line. That was after you were crass beyond belief, and a mod agreed.

You have failed in your endeavor to have me banned, or to run me off, or otherwise "vanquish" me.

How have I failed? I didn't say I would have you banned overnight, just if you continue to break board rules. Same as anyone else. However I have most definitly "vanquished" you in the debating department heh.

If you continue in this vein, your failure will follow you, and your reason for being here will thus be re-defined.

What failure? You continue to behave, you won't get banned. I can't force your banning, I can just report bannable behaviour. Don't act in such a manner and you will be fine.

  I will admit-now I am merely tweaking you, but I have concluded that is all you deserve, due to your methods in this forum.

Yes, my apologies for using facts and sources rather than value judgements and bias

I don't believe I have "insulted" you in this post either

Don't see any insults either, or I would have reported them.

unless you wish to somehow ascertain my intent to reveal in you a tunnel-vision which hinders any effect you might otherwise have, were your purpose to actually debate, rather than to engage me continually.

I am happy to debate, and not only with you. As I have repeatedly said, it's not my fault that most of the uninformed opinion and avoidance of facts appears to come from you. Start proving your claims and I won't have to disprove them all the time.

I will now re-commence ignoring you, unless it turns out that I can look in your direction and not find myself staring down the barrel of your liberal pea-shooter. 

Hold on, isn't being called a liberal an insult in your book? Report!!!

Anyway, ignore me if you want as I have no problem with that. However I will still reply to your posts pointing out the inaccuracies and outright lies contained in them.

I take it you are never going to prove your 85% claim then? No need for further comment from you anyway really. Figures have already shown that the true figure is between 1% and 2%. You have been shown to be a writer of baseless hyberbole.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by j2k4+16 January 2004 - 18:23--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 16 January 2004 - 18:23)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-1234@16 January 2004 - 13:03
Tragic, really tragic.

Trite, really trite.

Come now, 1234-

Who is being monotonously repetitive here?

You are here for one reason, and one reason only, and you have already stated it in the clearest terms.

You have failed in your endeavor to have me banned, or to run me off, or otherwise "vanquish" me.

If you continue in this vein, your failure will follow you, and your reason for being here will thus be re-defined.

I will admit-now I am merely tweaking you, but I have concluded that is all you deserve, due to your methods in this forum.

I don&#39;t believe I have "insulted" you in this post either, unless you wish to somehow ascertain my intent to reveal in you a tunnel-vision which hinders any effect you might otherwise have, were your purpose to actually debate, rather than to engage me continually.

So-

I will now re-commence ignoring you, unless it turns out that I can look in your direction and not find myself staring down the barrel of your liberal pea-shooter.



[/b][/quote]
Damn j2k4.

Why argue with an obvious troller?

The topic is barely being talked about. Look at the posts. He&#39;s a trolling nitpicker.
All your sentences are being analyzed and shit, I&#39;m surprised he hasn&#39;t done a spell and grammar check.

[1234]

All your sentences are being analyzed and shit, I&#39;m surprised he hasn&#39;t done a spell and grammar

Nah, I leave that kind of crap to j2k4. What you describe is what he did

[Busyman]

Hey j2 are you doing this?

no

You sure?

yeah

Yeah that you are nitpicking?

No

Then why&#39;d you say yeah?

AAAAARGHHHH&#33;&#33;

What do mean AAAAARGH?

Leave me alone&#33;&#33;&#33;

j2 you have problems

What a joke

[summerlinda]

Since when does anyone here gives a fuck about what Hypo thinks?

[hobbes]

I think 1234 is evilbagpuss, back to troll again.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by summerlinda@17 January 2004 - 19:50
Since when does anyone here gives a fuck about what Hypo thinks?

Linda-

Hypo is not culpable for the bendy path this thread has taken.

[DerrickW]

Hey, I hate to splash water on the parade, and I know you must have worked hard to compile this list, but Geeeze --

Reason #41 -- Appointed David Lauriski, a mining executive, to head the Mine Safety and Health agency.

Just so you know, David Lauriski isn't just ANY former mining executive. David Lauriski was the safety officer on duty in December, 1984, when his company, Energy West Mining, was about to set a new world production record for coal mining. And they would have done it, too, except for a few egregious and long-standing safety violations that caused an explosion, which set off a huge fire that killed 27 miners, including the first woman miner to die in a mine disaster in Utah. Of course, many of the victims would have escaped except for the safety staff neglecting to have enough escapeways. They were basically trapped like animals and died after being exposed to smoke and intense heat. Most of the heads of the Mine Safety and Health agency have been dorky little unkowns. At least Bush has the panache to liven up this dreary little town with lively appointees.